St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. White
| Decision Date | 02 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2659.) |
| Citation | 222 S.W. 963 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. WHITE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by J. B. White against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Verdict and judgment for defendant in the district court. From an affirmance by the Court of Civil Appeals (160 S. W. 1128), defendant brings error. Judgments affirmed.
A. H. Dashiell, of Terrell, and Andrews, Streetman, Burns & Logue, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, for defendant in error.
In this case, defendant in error recovered of plaintiff in error damages sustained by cattle belonging to defendant in error from rough handling and delays occasioned by the negligence of plaintiff in error in transporting the cattle to market at Chicago. Had ordinary care been exercised, plaintiff in error would have delivered the cattle in time for them to have been sold on Monday's market. The cattle were delivered at 2:30 p. m. on Monday. The market closed 30 minutes later. There was testimony that this was too late to place the cattle on the market before Tuesday, because it required an hour or an hour and a half to shape up the cattle for the market. The decline in the market price of the cattle from Monday to Tuesday was 15 cents per 100 pounds. Defendant in error was allowed compensation for this decline in the verdict on which judgment was rendered by the trial court. The charge stated the measure of damages to be the difference between the market value, at Chicago, of the cattle, had they arrived without delay or injury, and their market value, at Chicago, upon the first market after their arrival for which they could be prepared by the shipper by the use of reasonable diligence.
Plaintiff in error urged in the Court of Civil Appeals, and urges here, that the delivery of the cattle, before the close of the market on Monday, precluded any recovery by defendant in error on account of the decline in the market after Monday, regardless of the time required to put the cattle in shape for sale on the market. In support of this position the decision of the Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals is cited in C., R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Young & Ball, 107 S. W. 127. In that case, it was held that the proper measure of damages for delay in a cattle shipment was the difference in market value of the cattle, at destination, at the time of their delivery to the consignee, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Hill
...126 S. W. 890; Railway v. Jones, 104 Tex. 92, 134 S. W. 328; San Marcos Oil Co. v. Soyars (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 173; Railway v. White, 110 Tex. 585, 222 S. W. 963; Hines v. Edwards (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. Special issue No 7 is erroneous, because it made the test of liability of the ......
-
Thompson v. Bob Tankersley Produce Co.
...Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97, 40 S.Ct. 504, 64 L.Ed. 801; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. White, 110 Tex. 585, 222 S.W. 963. The judgment is ...
-
Dean v. Hines
...was held in St. L. & S. F. Ry. v. White (Tex.Civ.App.) 160 S.W. 1128, 1129, which holding was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, 110 Tex. 585, 222 S.W. 963, that: "The general rule is that, in order to constitute a material variance between the allegata and probata, the variance must be i......