Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Trautmann Bros.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 13639,13639
• Citation: 341 S.W.2d 504
• Parties: PANHANDLE AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant v. TRAUTMAN BROTHERS, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 504

341 S.W.2d 504

PANHANDLE AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant v. TRAUTMAN BROTHERS, Appellee.

No. 13639.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Nov. 9, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1960.

Wagner, Graham & Graham, Brownsville, for appellant.

Ward & Brown, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted by Trautmann Brothers of Hereford, Texas, Inc., as shipper, against the Panhandle and Santa Fe Railway Company as carrier, in the District Court of Cameron County, Texas, seeking to recover damages arising out of shipments of vegetables. The first count of the petition related to the shipment of a car of lettuce from Hereford, Texas, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The second count related to the shipment of a car of Honey Dew melons from Lockney, Texas, to New York, New York. The trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury and judgment was rendered in favor of shipper in the sum of $462.50 for damages to the lettuce in transit, plus interest, and in the sum of $188.50 for damages to the Honey Dew melons in transit, plus interest, making a total judgment of $795.93, from which judgment the Panhandle and Santa Fe Railway Company has prosecuted this appeal. The appellant requested and the trial judge made separate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the lettuce and as to the melons. These findings, if supported by the evidence, were sufficient bases for the amount of the judgment rendered. By its Points Two and Three, appellant presents the contention that these findings were not supported by the evidence.

There is no contention here that the produce was unreasonably delayed in transit, but, on the contrary, the evidence shows that it was timely delivered at destination. The evidence is sufficient to show that the produce was in good condition when received by the carrier, and was in bad condition when delivered to the consignee at destination. This testimony made out a prima facie case for plaintiff and defendant undertook to relieve itself from liability by attempting to show that the evegetables were transported and cared for in keeping with the instructions of plaintiff, especially as to icing and re-icing the cars in transit. The witnesses who testified for carrier that the shipper's instructions were carried out, and that the cars were iced and re-iced in keeping with the orders of shipper, testified largely from hearsay. They produced in evidence no records, or...