Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Reeves
| Decision Date | 15 March 1897 |
| Citation | 39 S.W. 564 |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. REEVES. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by H. D. Reeves against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company to recover for injuries to live stock during transportation. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the court of civil appeals (39 S. W. 135), and defendant applies for writ of error. Application refused.
B. G. Bidwell, for applicant.
The application for the writ of error in this case is refused. In refusing it, however, we have not found it necessary to determine whether or not our statute which prohibits stipulations in contracts limiting the time in which actions may be brought for their breach is without effect when applied to contracts of carriers for interstate shipments. The stipulation in the contract in this case does not appear clearly to be a reasonable one, and under the authority of Railway Co. v. Harris, 67 Tex. 166, 2 S. W. 574, we think that, in order for the defendant to have availed itself of the defense, it should, in its answer, have alleged the facts which would have shown it to be reasonable. See, also, Railway Co. v. Davis, 88 Tex. 593, 32 S. W. 510. This was not done.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Eldridge
...113 A. 570; Phillips v. R.R. Co., 172 N.C. 86, 89 S.E. 1057; Railroad Co. v. Hays, 13 Tex.Civ.App. 577, 35 S.W. 476; Railway Co. v. Reeves, 90 Tex. 499, 39 S.W. 564; Railway Co. v. Crowley (Tex. Civ. App.) 86 S.W. 342; Co. v. Boshear (Tex. Civ. App.) 108 S.W. 1032; Railroad Co. v. Bryce, 49......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Crowley
...was not given. Railway v. Hays (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 476; Telegraph Co. v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S. W. 279; Railway v. Reeves, 90 Tex. 499, 39 S. W. 564. Appellee swore that he had put his claim in the hands of A. F. Crowley, and had instructed him to give notice of it. It was not......
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Hornbeck