McRea v. McWilliams

Decision Date01 January 1883
Docket NumberCase No. 508.
Citation58 Tex. 328
PartiesJ. W. MCREA ET AL. v. E. MCWILLIAMS.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ERROR from Polk. Tried below before the Hon. H. C. Pedigo.

This suit was brought in the district court by defendant in error against W. W. Hunter and plaintiffs in error. Petition filed September 4, 1873, and alleged that on the 28th day of April, 1871, the United States, acting by their postmaster general and W?? W. Hunter, J. W. McRae and W. D. Garey as his sureties, entered into a written contract; that Hunter had been accepted as contractor for transporting the mail on route No. 8650, from Livingston, Texas, via Swartwout, Cold Springs, Waverly and Danville, to Montgomery and back, three times a week, at $1,800 a year, from July, 1871, to June, 1875. Covenants: “The said contractor and his sureties do jointly and severally undertake, covenant and agree with the United States, and do bind themselves: 1st, to carry said mail with certainty, celerity and security…. 2d, to carry said mail in a safe and secure manner, free from wet or other injury…. 3d, to take the mail and every part of it from, and deliver it, and every part of it, at each postoffice on the route … and into the postoffice at each end of the route, and into the postoffice at which the carrier stops at night, if one is there kept, and if no office is there kept, to lock it up in some secure place at the risk of the contractor. They also undertake, covenant and agree with the United States, and do bind themselves jointly and severally, as aforesaid, to be answerable for the person to whom the said contractor shall commit the care and transportation of the mail, and accountable to the United States for any damages which may be sustained by the United States through his unfaithfulness or want of care.”

The petition alleged that Hunter employed Rasbern and Bishop--men of alleged bad characters--as carriers on said route, in December, 1872; that they, in charge of the mail between Swartwout and Livingston, on the ____ day of said month, broke open the pouch containing the mail, and extracted therefrom a registered letter containing $200, the property of plaintiff, and appropriated it to their own use. An amended petition alleged that plaintiff was a citizen of the United States; that the contract was entered into for a public purpose, for the use and benefit of every citizen of the United States, the said states acting by their postmaster general in said contract, for and in behalf of the citizens thereof, and for their benefit and security. The case was tried in October, 1874; judgment for plaintiff against all defendants for $200 and costs. McRae and Garey alone prosecuted a writ of error.

J. M. Crosson, for plaintiffs in error.

I. The plaintiffs in error were not liable to McWilliams upon the contract sued upon. There was no privity between them and McWilliams. And certainly, if the suit was upon a breach of duty on the part of Hunter or his agents, then plaintiffs in error were not responsible. They were only Hunter's sureties, “and their liability is a matter of strict law, and cannot be extended by implication or intendment.” 2 Tex., 607;8 Tex., 69, 70. Further, it is “a general rule, that a principal who neither authorizes nor ratifies a wilful trespass committed by his agent is not liable therefor.” Gilleland v. Drake, 36 Tex., 677; also Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass., 479. There is no allegation in the pleadings that Hunter ever authorized or ratified the trespass, if trespass it was. There being no express contract between these plaintiffs in error and McWilliams, can they be bound by any implied contract? The foregoing authorities say not.

… II. The rule laid down in Sawyer v. Corse is, “That a person who takes upon himself a public employment is liable to third persons in an action on the case for any injury occasioned by his own personal negligence or default in the discharge of his duties, and for any injury occasioned by the negligence or default of his private agent or servant in the discharge of his official duties.” No such averment is made in the pleadings in this case. The averments are that Hunter's carriers robbed the mails. Was Hunter himself, much less his sureties, responsible for these acts in this suit? We think not. See 36 Tex., 677; Story on Agency, secs. 318, 456; Saunders' Plead. & Ev., vol. 1, sec. 750; vol. 2, sec. 706; 20 Tex., 197;8 Tex., 9.

III. The petition shows that neither of the defendants were residents of Polk county. The jurisdiction in this case rested upon subdivisions 4 and 7 of article 1423, Pasch. Dig. As to subdivision 4, the plaintiffs' pleadings showed that Hunter and sureties had made no contract whatever with McWilliams to be performed in Polk or any other county. As to subdivision 7, the plaintiffs' pleadings show that neither Hunter, Garey or McRae had committed any crime, offense or trespass in Polk county.

Jas. Boone, also for plaintiffs in error.

James E. Hill, for defendant in error.

I. There was no error in overruling the joint general demurrer of defendants below. The only question that could have been raised is as to the liability of plaintiffs in error, and that they are liable I think the peculiar instrument they signed shows. That Hunter is responsible, see Sawyer v. Corse, 17 Gratt., 230et seq.

II. The lower court did not err in overruling special demurrers of defendants. Their pleadings were joint; the special demurrers were joint; the allegations are not sufficient to raise an issue on special demurrer. Sayles' Pl., § 84.

III. That the district court had jurisdiction, see Pasch. Dig., 1423, subdivisions 4 and 7.

… IX. The ninth assignment states that the district court charged the jury that Hunter was contractor on route No. 8650. This conclusion is incorrect. The charge begins thus: If from the testimony in this case the jury believe.”““ If ” controls the sentence and its adjuncts. If this charge is obnoxious to criticism, it cannot be taken advantage of in the absence of counter charge by the party objecting, or a statement of the facts. Defendants below should have excepted, or tendered special instructions. Engledow v. James, 35 Tex., 81. Was the verdict affected by the charge, even if erroneous? 11 Tex., 649;12 Tex., 209;16 Tex., 335; Id., 563; Id., 652; 18 Tex., 615;23 Tex., 441;27 Tex., 534;Kaise v. Lawson, 38 Tex., 160. When the evidence of a fact is not disputed, it is taken as established, and the charge of the court should proceed upon that basis. Sayles' Prac., § 599, and cases cited.

X. The tenth assignment is that the district court erred in charging that McRae and Garey were responsible upon the bond sued on, when the purport of the charge is, that “if” a certain state of facts exists that all defendants are responsible. The impression conveyed by this assignment is, that plaintiffs in error had filed a plea presenting an issue of suretyship, and such other special matter as they now seem to have intended to plead. The charge must conform to the pleadings, and the evidence adduced under them, and as plaintiffs in error presented no plea requiring a charge as to them, none was given. Sayles' Prac., § 600. No charge need be given in a civil cause, unless the court be requested to instruct the jury. Metzger v. Wendler, 35 Tex., 378. Having failed to tender special instructions or except to the charge of the court, in the absence of a statement of facts this court will not revise the judgment. Wright v. Donnell, 34 Tex., 305;Powell v. Haley, 28 Tex., 52;Farquhar v. Dallas, 20 Tex., 200; Robinson v. Varnell, supra;Cole v. Cole, 17 Tex., 5;Armstrong v. Lipscomb, 11 Tex., 653. “In the absence of a statement of facts, the presumption is that the evidence authorized the verdict.” Flanagan v. Ward, 12 Tex., 209. Where the facts are not presented by the record, this court will not undertake to revise the rulings of the court below upon instructions to the jury. McMahan v. Rice, 16 Tex., 339;Dalby v. Booth, 16 Tex., 564;Lewis v. Black, 16 Tex., 652;Dever v. Branch, 18 Tex., 615;Birge v. Wanhop, 23 Tex., 441;McGaughey v. Bendy, 27 Tex., 534. If the plaintiffs in error had any defense to this action, they failed to set it up by appropriate pleadings. We find what is termed by them a “plea in abatement:” 1st. That defendants below were residents of Montgomery county. 2d. That they did not contract with plaintiffs below to perform any obligation in Polk county. 3d. That they did not commit a criminal offense or trespass against plaintiff or her property in Polk county, for which a civil action in damages might have been commenced. 4th. That this suit is brought upon a contract between the United States (acting by their postmaster general) and defendants. No matter here alleged is sworn to, save that contained in the first part. The demurrer to this plea was properly sustained. Willson v. Adams, 15 Tex., 324. The first part need not have been sworn to; the second part should have been. Had this quasi plea in abatement been intended to reach the disability of plaintiff in the district court, it should have given her a better writ; such pleas must not only point out the plaintiff's error, but must show her how it may be corrected, and furnish her with material for avoiding the same mistake in another suit regarding the same cause of action. Sayles' Pl., § 94.

XI. A plea to the jurisdiction of the district court, failing to show what court has jurisdiction, is bad. Sayles' Pl., § 93; Gould's Pl., 237; 1 Chit. Pl., 444. I respectfully submit that defendants in the lower court failing to set up their defense by special plea, it could not be reached by the general denial. Sayles' Pl., § 116 (note 388); Carter et al. v. Wallace, 2 Tex., 206;Love v. McIntyre, 3 Tex., 10; Tanner v. Sayer, 4 Tex., 28; Mayfield v. Averett, 11...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Danner v. Walker-Smith Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 24 Abril 1912
    ...issue are in confusion, if not in actual conflict. As tending to support the affirmative, see Willie v. Thomas, 22 Tex. 175; McRea v. McWilliams, 58 Tex. 328; Washington v. Johnson, 34 S. W. 1041; Nasworthy v. Draper, 29 S. W. 557; Hamilton v. Prescott, 73 Tex. 565-567, 11 S. W. 549; McIlhe......
  • In re Barrett's Estate
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 3 Marzo 1914
    ... ... 354; Call v. Call, (W. Va.) 40 ... S.E. 380; Kannawha Dispatch v. Fish, (Ill.) 76 N.E ... 352; Boulare v. Newton, 18 Gratt. 708; McRea v ... McWilliams, 58 Tex. 328; Walker v. Page, 21 ... Gratt. 636; Tod v. Stanbaugh, 37 O. St. 469; Bowlby ... v. Dewitt, (W. Va.) 34 S.E. 919) ... ...
  • Hamilton v. Prescott
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 26 Abril 1889
    ...in Burleson v. Henderson, 4 Tex. 59; Wood v. Smith, 11 Tex. 367; Willie v. Thomas, 22 Tex. 175; Dickson v. Burke, 28 Tex. 117; McRea v. McWilliams, 58 Tex. 328; Bradford v. Taylor, 64 Tex. 169; and McIlhenny v. Lee, 43 Tex. 205, — it is held that a reversal as to one should reverse as to al......
  • Moody v. Megee, 5586.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 21 Junio 1930
    ...beyond the clearly expressed intent of the statute. The District Court, relying upon the following Texas cases, to-wit: McRea v. McWilliams, 58 Tex. 328; Clough v. Worsham, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 187, 74 S. W. 350; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Jasper, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 236, 120 S. W. 1145; U. S. F. & G.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT