R. W. Williamson & Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2333.) |
| Citation | 166 S.W. 692 |
| Parties | R. W. WILLIAMSON & CO. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by R. W. Williamson & Co. against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. A judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (138 S. W. 807), and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.
D. A. Eldridge, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error. T. B. McCormick and T. D. Gresham, both of Dallas, for defendant in error.
The suit was for the recovery of the value of 30 bales of cotton, based upon a bill of lading, issued by the defendant in error to W. A. Arthur & Co., and by that firm for a valuable consideration indorsed to the plaintiffs in error, for the transportation from Detroit, Tex., and delivery at Liverpool, England, of 104 bales of cotton, the shipment to be over the line of defendant in error from Detroit to New Orleans, La., and via the Leyland Steamship Line from New Orleans to Liverpool. While the cotton was in the possession of the defendant in error, and in the course of the transportation from Detroit to New Orleans, 30 bales were destroyed by fire. The remaining 74 bales were duly delivered at New Orleans to the steamship line, which at the time issued to the plaintiffs in error, the then holders of the original bill of lading and owners of the cotton, its marine bill of lading for their transportation to Liverpool, this part of the original shipment being thereafter duly delivered at Liverpool, whereupon both bills of lading were surrendered, with a notation made upon the original bill of lading of the defendant in error indicating the delivery to the steamship line of only 74 bales of the original shipment. It was found by the honorable Court of Civil Appeals that the plaintiffs had notice of there being a shortage of 30 bales in the shipment at the time of the delivery of the cotton to the steamship line at New Orleans, that the consignee of the cotton had notice to the same effect when the bills of lading were surrendered at Liverpool, but that plaintiffs in error had no actual knowledge of the destruction by fire of the 30 bales in question while in transit to New Orleans, until a later time.
The suit was filed more than two years after the destruction of the 30 bales, and after the plaintiffs in error acquired actual knowledge of that fact, but within four years from the date they acquired such knowledge, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Nesbitt
...and transporting it under such agreement; and that action on such contract was not barred in two years. See Williamson & Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 106 Tex. 294, 166 S. W. 692; Freeman v. Walker, 175 S. W. 1133; Dowlen v. George Mfg. Co., 59 Tex. Civ. App. 124, 125 S. W. 931; Vogel v. Zuercher......
-
Freeman v. W. B. Walker & Sons
...of appellant; and in such cases the four years' statute of limitation, instead of the two, seems to apply. See Williamson & Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 166 S. W. 692; Elder, Dempster & Co. v. Railway Co., 105 Tex. 628, 154 S. W. 975. Besides this, the facts show, and the court found, that t......
-
Edsall v. Edsall
...v. Coolgrove, 59 Tex. 164; Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. Beaumont Rice Mills, 105 Tex. 514, 143 S.W. 926; R. W. Williamson & Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 106 Tex. 294, 166 S.W. 692; Glenn v. Steele, Tex.Sup., 61 S.W.2d 810. The trial court found the following '7. Prior to and at the time of......
-
Smith v. Chipley
...Robinson v. Varnell, 16 Tex. 382; Elder, etc., Co. v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 105 Tex. 628, 154 S. W. 975; Williamson & Co. v. T. & P. R. Co., 106 Tex. 294, 166 S. W. 692. The contract was dated November 22, 1922, and the original petition was filed on October 28, 1926, within less than fou......