Solomon Wolfe's Adm'x v. Lacy

• Decision Date: 30 April 1867
• Citation: 30 Tex. 349
• Parties: SOLOMON WOLFE'S ADMINISTRATRIX v. LACY, COLBY & CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

30 Tex. 349

SOLOMON WOLFE'S ADMINISTRATRIX

v.LACY, COLBY & CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April, 1867.

When a voyage has been commenced and the loss sustained, the net value of the article shipped at the place of destination is in general the criterion of damages for the breach of the contract, and interest, as a legal incident, should not be allowed; but interest by way of punitory damages for any fraud, delinquency, or injustice by the carrier may be awarded. Pas. Dig. arts. 452, 3940, notes 329, 930.

APPEAL from Cherokee. The case was tried before Hon. REUBEN A. REEVES, one of the district judges.

Lacy, Colby & Co. sued Solomon Wolfe on a bill of lading, by which Wolfe undertook to deliver one hundred and sixty-one bales of cotton at Sabine Pass for shipment to New Orleans.

The issue was as to carelessness and want of diligence, or not. The proof of the damage was conclusive, the proof of the carelessness was satisfactory to the jury. The owner sold the plank, which was used for covering the cotton, and thus exposed it to heavy rains. He refused to allow the steamboat Florida to tow his boat across the lake, and thus kept the cotton exposed for three weeks to the weather. He was much of the time “on a spree,” and failed to act like a prudent man. The instructions of the court construed these acts into carelessness, and also told the jury that, if they thought the carelessness was gross, they should not only allow the actual damages proved, but such punitory damage as would cover the interest upon the actual damage. The jury found a verdict accordingly, and from the judgment upon it the defendant's administratrix appealed, and assigned for error the instructions of the court.

T. T. Gammage, for the plaintiff, insisted that interest can only be recovered for a certain amount under the statute, in which he cited Pas. Dig. art. 3940, and the cases cited in note 930, and Sedg. Dam. 355, and cases there cited. He also insisted that the defendant was not in the rule of Chevallier v. Patton, 10 Tex. 346.

Bonner & Bonner, for appellees, argued the facts of the case, and cited the authorities upon carriers collected in Pas. Dig. note 329.

SMITH, J.

The law regulating the duties and liabilities of common carriers in the event of loss, in cases like this, was correctly given by the court in his charge to the jury, as settled by this court in the case of Chevallier v. Patton, 10 Tex. 346; Whitesides v. Turkhill, 12 Miss. 599. Whether the defendant, by custom or contract, was to cover the boats, so that the cotton would be protected from rain, was...