Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Mexican Light & Power Co.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. A-813.,A-813. |
| Citation | 193 S.W.2d 964 |
| Parties | TEXAS MEXICAN RY. CO. v. MEXICAN LIGHT & POWER CO., Limited. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Mexican Light & Power Company, Limited, against the Texas Mexican Railway Company to recover for damages suffered by plaintiff as result of derailment of freight cars on which plaintiff's property was being transported within the Republic of Mexico. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 190 S.W.2d 838, reversing the judgment and rendering judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant brings error.
Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed and trial court's judgment affirmed.
J. D. Dodson, of San Antonio, Marcellus Eckhardt, of Corpus Christi, Elmore H. Borchers, of Laredo, and Chas. W. Duke, of San Antonio, for petitioner.
Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman & Bates and Chas. W. Bell, all of Houston, and Johns & McCampbell, of Corpus Christi, for respondent.
This is a suit by Mexican Light & Power Company, Ltd., a Canadian corporation, respondent, against The Texas Mexican Railway Company, a Texas corporation, petitioner, for damages on account of injuries to electrical machinery resulting from a derailment in the Republic of Mexico on the lines of the National Railways of Mexico. Liability is sought to be imposed upon petitioner under the provisions of the Cummings Amendments to the Carmack Amendment. 49 U.S.C.A. § 20 (11). The judgment of the trial court denied respondent any recovery, but that judgment was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals and judgment rendered in its favor for the stipulated amount of its damages. 190 S.W.2d 838.
The statute relied upon by respondent to fix the liability of petitioner is copied as a footnote to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. Under the provisions of that statute, if petitioner received the machinery for transportation from a point in the United States (Laredo, Texas) to a point in an adjacent foreign country (El Oro, Mexico) and for a valuable consideration issued to respondent a through bill of lading covering the shipment from its yards in Laredo to El Oro, then it is liable to respondent for the damages sustained on account of the negligence of the National Railways of Mexico, a connecting carrier; otherwise it is not liable therefor.
The facts were stipulated and those deemed controlling will be summarized in this opinion. The machinery was purchased by respondent from Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, which company delivered it to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company at Sharon, Pa., for transportation to El Oro, Mexico. That company issued to the consignor a uniform straight bill of lading consigning the machinery to respondent, in care of Fausto Trevino, Customs Agent at Laredo, Texas. The bill of lading disclosed that the freight charges had been prepaid and carried on its face this notation, "For Export to: El Oro, Estado de Mexico, via Acambaro, via Laredo." The shipment went forward from Sharon, Pa., over the Pennsylvania Railroad line and connecting carriers to Alice, Texas, where same was delivered to petitioner and by it transported to its yards in Laredo. On the day after the shipment arrived at Laredo, petitioner issued the instrument claimed by respondent to be a through bill of lading from Laredo, Texas, to El Oro, Mexico. Upon this instrument respondent bases its alleged cause of action against petitioner. It was prepared upon a form employed by petitioner and on its face appears to be a regular bill of lading. It recites that the shipment was received from Fausto Trevino; that same was consigned to respondent, destination El Oro, "State of Mexico," via Acambaro. No rates or charges for transportation are named in the instrument, but on its face there is printed over the typewritten signature of the consignor, Fausto Trevino, the following: "The carrier shall not make delivery of this shipment without payment of freight and all other lawful charges." After issuing this instrument, petitioner delivered same to Trevino, who then completed his arrangements with the Mexican Customs Office for transportation into Mexico. He then notified petitioner of that fact and thereupon petitioner moved the cars, laden with the machinery, from its yards to the middle of the International bridge between Laredo, Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Here they were picked up by National Railways of Mexico and transported to a point in the interior of Mexico where the derailment occurred resulting in the damages sued for herein.
Additional facts taken from the stipulations are: That when this shipment was made no through railroad tariff was in effect governing such shipment from either Sharon, Pa., or Laredo, Texas, to El Oro, Mexico, or any other point in Mexico; that Fausto Trevino, who acted as agent for respondent in the matter, did not pay petitioner for carrier charges or any other charges than those applicable from Sharon, Pa., to Laredo, Texas, which included bringing the shipment to the international border line where it was delivered to the National Railways of Mexico; that the shipment moved into Mexico on the same cars on which same was loaded at Sharon, Pa.; that petitioner received no portion of the revenue paid the National Railways of Mexico for transporting the shipment in question from the international border line into the Republic of Mexico and had no agreement to receive any portion of such revenue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mexican Light Power Co v. Texas Mexican Ry Co
...went for the railroad. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals reversed, 190 S.W.2d 838, but was in turn reversed by the Supreme Court of Texas. 193 S.W.2d 964. We granted certiorari, 329 U.S. 697, 67 S.Ct. 97, because important issues affecting the carrier's liability under the Interstate Commerc......