Rio Grande & E. P. R. Co. v. T. A. Austin & Co.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1930
• Docket Number: No. 1311-5401.,1311-5401.
• Citation: 25 S.W.2d 306
• Parties: RIO GRANDE & E. P. R. CO. v. T. A. AUSTIN & CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

25 S.W.2d 306

RIO GRANDE & E. P. R. CO. v. T. A. AUSTIN & CO.

No. 1311-5401.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

March 5, 1930.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by the T. A. Austin & Co. against the Rio Grande & Eagle Pass Railroad Co. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals [12 S.W.(2d) 1070], and defendant brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

Hicks, Hicks, Dickson & Bobbitt, of San Antonio, and Yale Hicks, of Laredo, for plaintiff in error.

Robert G. Harris, of San Antonio, for defendant in error.

SHARP, J.

T. A. Austin & Co. instituted this suit in the county court at law of Bexar county against the Rio Grande & Eagle Pass Railroad Company, and alleged that on or about the 15th day of February, 1927, at Laredo. Tex., T. A. Austin & Co. delivered to the railroad company for shipment over the Rio Grande & Eagle Pass Railroad Company, and other connecting lines of railroads, 864 baskets of mustard to St. Louis, Mo., and that the railroad company issued a bill of lading therefor, and that the shipment of mustard was damaged by reason of the negligent handling of same by the shipper.

The railroad company answered by general demurrer, special exceptions, and general denial, and that, if the mustard deteriorated in value during the shipment, such fact was the result of the condition in which said mustard was loaded at the initial point of shipment or to the inherent nature of the mustard, or to both of said facts.

The case was submitted to a jury upon special issues, which are as follows:

"Question No. 1: At the time of the delivery of said mustard greens to the defendant railway company, on February 15, 1927, were said greens of good, first-class quality, grade and condition? Answer `Yes' or `No.'

"We, the jury, answer: Yes.

"Question No. 2: If you have answered the foregoing in the affirmative, but not otherwise, then were said mustard greens delivered to the consignee thereof at St. Louis, on February 19, 1927, in a damaged condition showing badly yellow throughout? Answer `Yes' or `No.'

"We, the jury, answer: Yes.

"Question No. 3: If you have answered the foregoing question in the affirmative, but not otherwise, then was the proximate cause of the said condition in which said mustard greens were in at said time and place inquired about in the preceding question (a) the result of the condition in which said mustard greens were in at the time same were loaded at point of origin; (b) the result of the inherent nature of said mustard greens? Answer `Yes' or `No.'

"We, the jury, answer: (a) No; (b) No.

"Question No. 4: If you have answered either subdivision (a) or (b), of the foregoing question, in the negative, but not otherwise, then (a) what would have been the market price and value of said mustard greens, at St. Louis, on February 19, 1927 had same arrived at said time and place in the same condition same were in when delivered to the defendant railway company on February 15, 1927; (b) what was the market price and value of said mustard greens, at St. Louis, on February 19, 1927, in the condition same were in upon their said arrival? Answer, stating said respective prices and values.

"We, the jury, answer: (a) $993.60; (b) $522.20."

Judgment was rendered for Austin & Co. against the Rio Grande & Eagle Pass Railroad Company in the sum of $471.40, together with interest thereon. The railroad company appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District at San Antonio and the case was affirmed. 12 S.W. (2d) 1070.

The railroad company made an application to the Supreme Court for a writ of error, which was granted. There was introduced in evidence a uniform straight bill of lading prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Counsel for the railroad company in due time criticised the court in submitting subdivision (a) in question No. 4, above set out, in that it submits to the jury an incorrect measure of damages applicable to this case. We sustain this contention. This cause of action arose on an interstate shipment and the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States govern the rules of law pertaining to same. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U. S. 97, 40 S. Ct. 504, 64 L. Ed. 801; Cincinnati, New Orleans & Tex. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319, 36 S. Ct. 555, 60 L. Ed. 1022, L. R. A. 1917A, 265; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co. et al., 244 U. S. 31, 37 S. Ct. 487, 61 L. Ed. 970; Cleburne Peanut & Products Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 221 S. W. 270; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Licata (Tex. Com. App.) 280 S. W. 540; Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Alma Cash Store, 168 Ark. 823, 271 S. W. 453.

In the case of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U. S. 97, 40 S. Ct. 504, 64 L. Ed. 801, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States in the opinion says: "This is an action for the loss of grain belonging to the plaintiff and delivered on November 17, 1915, to the defendant, the petitioner, in Montana, for transportation to Omaha, Nebraska. The grain was shipped under the uniform bill of lading, part of the tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, by which it was provided that `the amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier is liable shall be computed on the basis of the value of the property at the place and time of shipment under this bill of lading, including freight charges, if paid.' The petitioner has paid $1,200.48, being the amount of the loss so computed, but the value of the grain at the place of destination at the time when it should have been delivered, with interest, less freight charges, was $1,422.11. The plaintiff claimed the difference between the two sums on the ground that the Cummins Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act made the above stipulation void. The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, 252 F. 664, and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 260 F. 835.

In the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the case of Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co. et al., 244 U. S. 31, 37 S. Ct. 487, 489, 61 L. Ed. 970, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States, in rendering that opinion, says: "Apart from the stipulation of these bills of lading, the ordinary measure of damages in cases of this sort is the...