Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Langbehn
Decision Date | 20 May 1912 |
Citation | 150 S.W. 1188 |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. LANGBEHN. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Clay S. Briggs, Judge.
Action by J. H. Langbehn against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed in part, and rendered in part.
Wilson & Dabney, of Houston, for appellant. Stewarts, of Galveston, for appellee.
This suit is by J. H. Langbehn against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company to recover the value of certain cotton alleged to have been shipped from Merkel, Tex., and from Colorado, Tex., to Galveston, Tex., and never delivered. Upon the trial, without a jury, there was judgment for plaintiff for $411, from which defendant appeals.
It was alleged that on October 11, 1906, J. F. Witherspoon delivered to the defendant at Merkel, Tex., 277 bales of cotton, marked "DONE," to be shipped to Galveston, Tex., to shipper's order, for which defendant executed its bill of lading No. 75; that on October 16, 1906, Campbell & Cleaver delivered to defendant, at Colorado, Tex., 50 bales of cotton, marked "EKT," to be shipped to Galveston, Tex., to shipper's order, for which defendant executed its bill of lading No. 69; that on or about April 24, 1907, Gussoni & Co. delivered to defendant, at Colorado, Tex., three bales of cotton, marked "LKWB," to be shipped to Galveston, Tex., to shipper's order, and defendant executed its bill of lading D898 therefor; that plaintiff made numerous demands from time to time, after lapse of a reasonable time, for delivery of said cotton, but that three bales of the cotton marked "DONE," of the market value of $218.67, were not delivered, and that ten bales of the cotton marked "EKT," of the market value of $1,280, were not delivered, and that the three bales marked "LKWB," of the market value of $147, were not delivered; that by accepting for through transportation said shipments, and issuing bills of lading therefor, defendant promised and became bound to perform said contract in Galveston county, Tex., by delivering said cotton at Galveston; that each of the said shippers, for value, indorsed and delivered the bills of lading to Langbehn Bros., whereby Langbehn Bros. became entitled to receive from defendant, and defendant became obligated to deliver, said cotton within a reasonable time; that from October, 1906, to February, 1907, there existed in the yards and upon the tracks of the various transportation companies at and near Galveston a congestion of cars, to such an extent that it was rendered impossible for the railroads to deliver freight with any degree of promptness, and that reasonable time for the delivery of the 277 bales and the 50 bales shipped in October, 1906, would have been about April 1 or 15, 1907; that defendant could not have been held liable in an action for breach of contract or delay before the said date of April, 1907, and therefore plaintiff's cause of action did not arise prior to April, 1907.
The petition was filed February 11, 1909. Defendant filed its plea of privilege, alleging that its domicile and principal office was in Dallas county, Tex.; that no part of its line extended into Galveston county; and that it had no agency or representative in Galveston county, and negativing the existence of any exception to the general provisions of the statute which would authorize suit against it in Galveston. Defendant also pleaded a general denial, and specially denied, under oath, that the International & Great Northern Railway Company was its agent, or that there was any partnership between them. Defendant further pleaded the two-year statute of limitation in bar of the action, and also that there was a special contract that no action should be brought for breach of the contract after two years from the date of the breach; and also pleaded in bar the failure of plaintiff to give notice in writing of the claim sued on before the expiration of 90 days from the date of the accrual of the claim.
By supplemental petition plaintiff pleaded "that plaintiff and defendant corresponded at great length concerning the claims now sued on from about October 18, 1907, almost continuously to the time of filing suit; that all such correspondence related to and constituted a claim in writing, and which notice was given before the expiration of 90 days from a reasonable time within which defendant could and should have delivered the cotton described in the petition in this cause, and, furthermore, by said correspondence defendant did waive the provisions in the bills of lading requiring notice of suit, in that defendant, its officers, agents, employés, and representatives, agreed to trace for and account to plaintiff for said cotton; that defendant's representatives, from time to time, did verbally promise plaintiff to trace for said cotton, and requested plaintiff to defer filing suit therefor, promising plaintiff that the cotton would be properly traced, and when found would be delivered to plaintiff, and plaintiff relied upon such representations, both verbal and written, and delayed filing suit until February 11, 1909, all of which matters and things so pleaded having been relied upon by plaintiff and induced plaintiff to delay filing suit until February 1, 1909;" and, further, that the 90-day limitation clause in the contract, for giving notice, was unreasonable.
The trial court, at the request of defendant, filed conclusions of fact and law. None of the conclusions of fact are objected to by either of the parties, and they are hereby adopted by us as our conclusions, and, so far as material to the questions presented, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ritchie v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
... ... Idaho Falls, Idaho, was a question of fact for the jury. ( ... Gray v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 32 Idaho 701, 703, ... 187 P. 540; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Langbehn (Tex. Civ ... App.), 150 S.W. 1188; 5 Elliott on Railroads, p. 706; ... Helliwell v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 7 F. 68, 10 ... ...
-
City of St. Louis v. Franklin Bank
...Ind. 130; American Lia. Co. v. Bowman, 114 N.E. 992, 65 Ind.App. 109; Wyandotte County v. Arnold, 30 P. 486, 49 Kan. 279; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Longbehn, 150 S.W. 1188; v. Twenty Barrels of Whiskey, 176 P. 673, 104 Wash. 382. OPINION Frank, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of ......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Langbehn
...The judgment as to the value of the cotton marked "LKWB" was undisturbed. The opinion on this motion for rehearing will also be found in 150 S. W. 1188. Within 15 days after the rendition of this opinion appellee filed a motion for a rehearing, which was overruled October 31, 1912. The case......
-
City of St. Louis v. Franklin Bank, 34234.
...Lia. Co. v. Bowman, 114 N.E. 992, 65 Ind. App. 109; Wyandotte County v. Arnold, 30 Pac. 486, 49 Kan. 279; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Longbehn, 150 S.W. 1188; State v. Twenty Barrels of Whiskey, 176 Pac. 673, 104 Wash. FRANK, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis......