Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 23 November 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 1861.)
• Citation: Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 235 S.W. 913 (Tex. App. 1921)
• Parties: PANHANDLE & S. F. RY. CO. et al. v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 913

235 S.W. 913

PANHANDLE & S. F. RY. CO. et al. v. THOMPSON.

(No. 1861.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

November 23, 1921.

Rehearing Denied January 4, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Hale County; R. C. Joiner, Judge.

Action by Tom Thompson against the Panhandle & Santa Fé Railway Company and J. L. Lancaster and another, receivers for the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and the receivers appeal. Affirmed.

R. S. Shapard, of Dallas, and Terry Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, Madden, Trulove, Ryburn & Pipkin, of Amarillo, and E. Graham, of Plainview, for appellants.

Williams & Martin, of Plainview, for appellee.

HALL, J.

This was a suit by appellee Thompson against Panhandle & Santa Fé Railway Company and J. L. Lancaster and Charles L. Wallace, receivers for the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, as defendants, for alleged damages to a shipment of 145 cattle shipped by appellee from Plainview, Tex., to Fort Worth, Tex., April 9, 1920. Appellee alleged negligent delay in the shipment, failure to properly care for and feed the cattle in transit, and sought to recover for extra feed bills, stating total damage to be $1,643. Upon a trial before a jury there was a verdict and a judgment in favor of the Panhandle & Santa Fé Railway Company and against the receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company in the sum of $1,408.90. The substance of the original petition is that on April 9, 1920, plaintiff delivered the cattle to the Panhandle & Santa Fé Railway Company at Plainview, to be transported via Sweetwater and the Texas & Pacific Railway Company to Fort Worth; that the shipment should have arrived at Fort Worth in time to have been rested, fed, watered, and sold on the market of April 10, 1920, but that they were not properly transported and were not delivered at Fort Worth until April 16th, and could not be sold until the following day; that the cattle were not properly fed and watered during the delay and shrank greatly in weight and became unmerchantable in appearance; that as a result of defendant's negligence 144 of the cattle lost 50 pounds each in weight, that one cow in the shipment lost 100 pounds in weight, more than they would have lost if properly transported, and by reason of their unmarketable appearance they were worth one cent per pound less than they would have been if properly transported and delivered; that the extra feed bill amounted to $143.

The defendant Panhandle & Santa Fé Railway Company answered by general demurrer, general denial, and by special pleas, limiting its liability to damages, if any, occurring on its own line. It further sets up that there was a strike of the switchmen employed by the defendant's receivers at Fort Worth; that the strike occurred after defendants had received the cattle at Plainview and prevailed for two weeks during which time all of the freight traffic over said lines of railway was paralyzed; that the alleged delay was attributable wholly to said strike, over which the defendants had no control and that the responsibility of the Panhandle & Santa Fé ended when it had delivered the shipment to its connecting carrier, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, at Sweetwater. The receivers answered by general demurrer, general denial, and specially that while the shipment was in their hands they exercised ordinary care to transport and deliver the same at Fort Worth; that before it reached their line of railway at Sweetwater the switchmen theretofore employed by them left their employment, went on a strike, and refused to handle shipments coming into terminals at Fort Worth for said defendants for about two weeks, thus practically tying up the movement of freight during that period; that such switchmen refused to work or permit others to work for defendants during such time; that defendants exercised ordinary care to overcome said obstacles, and had such of its officers, superintendents, and other employees who could perform the work of switchmen to do such work as could be done in the terminals at Fort Worth; that by reason of such condition defendants could not and did not operate any trains out of Fort Worth except passenger trains; that in the exercise of ordinary care the defendants transported the shipment...