Southern Pac. R. Co. v. W. T. Meadors & Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1911
• Citation: 140 S.W. 427
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. W. T. MEADORS & CO.

140 S.W. 427

SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. W. T. MEADORS & CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 8, 1911.

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

Action by W. T. Meadors & Company against the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and others. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (129 S. W. 170) affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant named brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, W. B. Garrett, and Ed W. Smith, for plaintiff in error. Ed J. Hamner, for defendants in error.

BROWN, C. J.

Meadors & Co., defendants in error, delivered to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, plaintiff in error, at Bowie, Ariz., horses to be transported by it to its connection with the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad Company, which company transported the said horses to El Paso, Tex., and delivered them to the Texas & Pacific Railway Company to be carried to Colorado in Mitchell county, Tex. Meadors & Co. shipped their horses from another place in Arizona on a different railroad to Bowie and there delivered them to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Before shipping the horses to Bowie, Meadors & Co. arranged with the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to have sufficient cars at Bowie to transport the horses to their destination, and, upon the arrival of the horses at Bowie, Meadors & Co. loaded them upon the cars, which were furnished by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, ready for transportation to their destination in Mitchell county, Tex. After the horses had been loaded upon the cars, being done on different days, however, the railroad company presented to Meadors & Co., and to their agents in charge of the horses, written contracts which were put in evidence on the trial of this case. The parties who signed the contracts did not know their contents and did not read them, but signed them at the request and suggestion of the railroad agent in order that they might secure passes to ride on the trains with the horses as they were being transported. There was no consideration for the execution of the said contracts other than the transportation of the horses. After the horses were loaded, the cars were carried by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to the end of its line at the center of the Rio Grande river, and, in the same cars, hauled by the same engine and operated by the same employés, the horses were then transported on the railroad of the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio to El Paso, at which place the horses were transferred to the Texas & Pacific Railway Company.

Meadors & Co. instituted suit in Mitchell county against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad Company, and the Southern Pacific Railway Company. The Texas & Pacific Railway runs through Mitchell county and has a station and agent in that county. The Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company is a Texas corporation, but had no railroad agent nor office in Mitchell county. The Southern Pacific Railway Company is a foreign corporation; its charter having been granted by the state of Kentucky. It owned no railroad in Texas, nor did it operate any railroad in this state. It had an agent at Galveston, and through that agent was transacting business in Texas. The Southern Pacific Railway Company pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court in Mitchell county and claimed its privilege to be sued in Galveston if it was liable to suit at all in the state. That company also pleaded written contracts signed by Meadors & Co. and their employés, whereby said railroad undertook to transport the horses from Bowie, Ariz., to Colorado City in Mitchell county, Tex., and in said contracts was a clause limiting to its own line the liability of the Southern Pacific Railway Company for damages that might accrue to said horses. Meadors & Co. filed a reply to the plea of the Southern Pacific Railway Company, in which they alleged that there was no consideration for the said contracts, and that they had signed them under the circumstances above stated without knowing their contents and after the contract for shipment had been made and the horses placed upon the cars; wherefore they claimed that the contracts were invalid and not their contracts. The plaintiffs did not rely upon the contracts for their recovery, but distinctly claimed a right to recover upon the verbal contract which was made before the horses were shipped. The trial court overruled the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Southern Pacific Railway Company; and, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company having agreed to an amount for which it would submit to judgment, the court entered judgment against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. It was charged in the petition that the Southern Pacific Railway Company and the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company were partners and agents each of the other, and that therefore the two were jointly and equally liable for the damages. Upon a trial verdict was rendered by the jury in favor of Meadors & Co. against the Southern Pacific Railway Company, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District. 129 S. W. 170.

The Twenty-Ninth Legislature enacted a law of which the following is a part: "Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Texas: That whenever any passenger, freight, baggage or other property has been transported by two or more railroad companies * * * doing business as such common carriers in this state, or having an agent or representative in this state, suit for damage or loss or for any other cause of action arising out of such carriage, transportation or contract in relation thereto may be brought against any one or all of such common carriers, * * * so operating or doing business in this state, or having an agent or representative in this state, in any court of competent jurisdiction in any county in which either of such common carriers * * * operates or does business, or has an agent or representative; provided, however, that if damages be recovered in such suits against more than one defendant, not partners in such carriage, transportation or contract, the same shall on request of either party...