Payne v. West, (No. 6508.)
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Key |
| Citation | 251 S.W. 565 |
| Parties | PAYNE, Agent, v. WEST. |
| Docket Number | (No. 6508.) |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1923 |
v.
WEST.
Appeal from Coleman County Court; L. G. Mathews, Judge.
Action by Hazel West, by next friend, against John Barton Payne, Agent. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reformed and affirmed.
Snodgrass & Dibrell, of Coleman, and Terry, Cavin & Mills and O. B. Wigley, all of Galveston, for appellant.
Baker & Weatherred, of Coleman, for appellee.
KEY, C. J.
It is conceded that appellant's brief correctly states the nature and result of the suit as follows:
Page 566
"On September 4, 1920, Hazel West, a minor, by her next friend, filed suit in the county court of Coleman county, Tex., against John Barton Payne, as the Agent of the President of the United States, alleging that during the time the railway companies were under federal control, and managed by and through Walker D. Hines, she purchased a ticket from the agent of Walker D. Hines, at Coleman, Tex., for transportation over the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, and other roads, from Coleman, Tex., to Denton, Tex., and paid the usual and customary price for the ticket; that for a valuable consideration she delivered to said agent at Coleman, Tex., one trunk, to be carried from Coleman, Tex., to Denton, Tex.; that she took passage on one of said company's trains; that she delivered said ticket to one of its conductors; that upon reaching Denton she was unable to locate the said trunk and had not received it; that the trunk and contents were of the value of $680.35; that the sum of $40.81 was spent in an effort to locate the trunk; that the plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $721.16.
"On June 22, 1921, the plaintiff filed a trial amendment alleging that James C. Davis had been appointed Federal Agent in lieu of John Barton Payne. The plaintiff also set out the value of each article alleged to have been in the trunk at the time it was delivered to the carrier at Coleman, Tex., making a total sum of $664.35.
"On June 22, 1921, the defendant filed his first amended original answer containing a general demurrer, special exceptions not material to this appeal, and a general denial; and by way of further answer the defendant alleged that, if the plaintiff did purchase a ticket, and check her trunk, the ticket provided that unless a greater value is declared by a passenger, and charges paid for the excess value at the time of delivery to the carrier, the value of the property belonging to or checked for a passenger on said ticket shall be deemed and agreed not in excess of the sum of $100, and that the carrier will not be liable for or accept claim for a greater sum in case of loss or damage; that there was on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and duly published and promulgated under the authority of the President of the United States and Director General of Railroads, tariffs which authorized the limitation set out above, at the times alleged in plaintiff's petition; that the said tariffs were applicable to both interstate and intrastate commerce; that at the times alleged in plaintiff's petition the railroads over which the plaintiff's trunk was checked were under the control of the Director General of Railroads; that the foregoing facts were pleaded in bar of a recovery in excess of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McConnell v. Payne, (No. 533-3729.)
...of baggage unless the party had declared a higher valuation and paid the extra rate as set out in said tariff. In Payne, Agent, v. West, 251 S. W. 565, the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third District of Texas had under consideration the precise question that we have in this case, and the c......
-
Hines v. Hale, (No. 6505.)
...of Coleman, for appellees. KEY, C. J. In its main features, this case is quite similar to John Barton Payne, Agent, v. Hazel West, 251 S. W. 565, this day decided by us, although there are a few minor questions in this case which are decided against appellant. But, for the reasons stated in......
-
McConnell v. Payne, (No. 533-3729.)
...of baggage unless the party had declared a higher valuation and paid the extra rate as set out in said tariff. In Payne, Agent, v. West, 251 S. W. 565, the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third District of Texas had under consideration the precise question that we have in this case, and the c......
-
Hines v. Hale, (No. 6505.)
...of Coleman, for appellees. KEY, C. J. In its main features, this case is quite similar to John Barton Payne, Agent, v. Hazel West, 251 S. W. 565, this day decided by us, although there are a few minor questions in this case which are decided against appellant. But, for the reasons stated in......