Langford v. Nevin
| Decision Date | 19 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 989-4850.) |
| Citation | 298 S.W. 536 |
| Parties | LANGFORD et al. v. NEVIN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, for appellants.
Kay, Akin & Smedley, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
W. S. Langford was engaged in the business of conducting a garage, in the city of Wichita Falls, for the storage and repair of automobiles for compensation. E. P. Nevin carried his automobile into the garage and there delivered it to the servant of Langford, who was in charge of the garage, for the purpose of having the car repaired. Thereafter it became necessary, in rearranging and placing the various cars in the garage, for Langford's said servant to remove Nevin's car temporarily from the garage building. The said servant drove the car out of the building and parked it in a public street that ran alongside the building. He negligently left the car standing in the street, with the key in the lock of the car. From this place the car was stolen by some unknown person, and has never been recovered. Nevin brought this suit against Langford, seeking to recover the value of the car on account of its loss through the negligence of Langford's servant, as above stated. Upon the trial, Langford offered testimony for the purpose of proving the following facts, which he had pleaded as grounds of defense, to wit: That there were posted in conspicuous places in the garage building a number of printed signs reading, "Not responsible for loss in case of fire or theft"; that, at the time Nevin brought his car into the garage, these signs were called to his attention and he assented to the language thereof as constituting a part of the bailment contract. This testimony, on objection, was excluded from the jury by the trial court. The jury, in answer to a special issue on the subject, found that Langford's servant was guilty of negligence in leaving the car in the street, with the key in the lock, as he did. Judgment was rendered in favor of Nevin for the value of the lost car. An appeal was prosecuted from this judgment, and the Court of Civil Appeals has submitted herein a certified question inquiring if it was reversible error for the trial court to exclude the testimony which was offered by Langford, as hereinabove stated.
Whether or not one engaged in conducting a garage, as a business, for the storage or repair of automobiles for people generally, for compensation, may, without contravening public policy, contract for exemption from the exercise of ordinary care with respect to the safety of an automobile intrusted to him in the course of the business, has not been settled in this state. A disposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAshan v. Cavitt
... ... Langford v. Nevin, 117 Tex. 130, 133, 298 S.W. 536 ... But the sign was not seen by Mrs. Cavitt and it was not called to her attention. She ... ...
-
Ablon v. Hawker
... ... It is so ordered." ... The doctrine announced by the Supreme Court, answering certified questions in Langford v. Nevin, 117 Tex. 130, 298 S.W. 536, 537, in my opinion, is a complete answer to the reasoning just quoted from the majority opinion. The Supreme ... ...
-
Anchor Cas. Co. v. Robertson Transport Co.
... ... 8 Am.Jur.2d 1021, Sec. 127; Callihan v. Montrief, 71 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.Civ.App.1934, err. ref.); Langford v. Nevin, 293 S.W. 673 (Tex.Civ.App.1927); Munger Automobile Co. v. American Lloyds of Dallas, 267 S.W. 304 (Tex.Civ.App.). If such contract is not ... ...
-
Wichita City Lines, Inc. v. Puckett
... ... the courts against such an intendment and not given such effect 'if any other meaning may reasonably be ascribed to the language employed.' Langford v. Nevin, 117 Tex. 130, 298 S.W. 536, 537; Continental Trailways, Inc., v. Bowen Estate, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 222, affirmed 152 Tex. 260, 256 ... ...