Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Coggin

Citation77 S.W. 1053
PartiesTEXAS & P. RY. CO. et al. v. COGGIN.
Decision Date05 December 1903
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; J. H. Calhoun, Judge.

Action by T. J. Coggin against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Stanley, Spoonts & Thompson, J. H. Barwise, Jr., and J. M. Wagstaff, for appellants. Cunningham & Oliver and Legett & Kirby, for appellee.

SPEER, J.

Appellee sued appellants to recover for injuries to a shipment of cattle. In his original petition is contained this allegation: "That by reason of such negligence and rough switching by defendants, and by reason of the long delay caused by the negligence of the defendants' agents, said cattle were beat, bruised, killed, crippled, gaunted, and starved, and otherwise damaged, to such an extent that 126 head were killed and died from the effects of such negligence, and the remaining 510 head that survived said negligent treatment were beat, bruised, gaunted, starved, and crippled to such an extent that they were damaged $4.00 per head, and in the aggregate $2,040.00; that the 126 head of cattle that were killed and died from the effects of the negligence aforesaid were nearly all cows with calf, and were reasonably worth on the market at Memphis, Texas, $25.00 per head, and in the aggregate $3,150.00, making a total damage to said train load of cattle $5,190.00."

By the first amended original petition it is alleged: "That by reason of said negligence and rough handling of said train of cattle by defendants, and by reason of the long delays caused by the negligence of defendants, said cattle were beat, bruised, crippled, gaunted, starved, many of them killed and otherwise damaged, to such an extent that 136 head were killed and died from the effects of such negligence, and the remaining 500 head that survived said negligent treatment were beat, bruised, gaunted, starved, and crippled and otherwise greatly damaged; that said train load of cattle in the condition in which they should and would have arrived at Memphis, Texas, by the exercise of proper care and prompt shipment on the part of defendants, would have sold on the market at Memphis, Texas, on the date of their arrival, at $25 per head, and in the aggregate at $15,900; that in the damaged condition in which said cattle arrived at Memphis, Texas, the 136 head that were dead and died from said improper treatment were without value; that 75 head of the remaining 500 were so badly crippled and hurt by defendants as to only have a market value at Memphis, Texas, on date of their arrival of $8.00 per head, and the remaining 425 head were crippled, gaunted, drawn, skinned, and otherwise injured by defendants so as to only have a market value of $15 per head on date of their arrival at Memphis, Texas, making a total damage to said cattle by said negligence of defendants in the sum of $8,925.00." While by yet another amendment, being the pleading upon which he went to trial, the injuries and damages were thus pleaded: "That by reason of such negligent and rough handling of said train of cattle by defendants, and by reason of the long delays caused by the negligence of defendants, and by reason of the long delays without eating and without rest, and the exposure to the cold mud and rain as aforesaid,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Thornell v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1923
    ...as admissions of the party filing them. Barrett v. Featherstone, 89 Tex. 567, 35 S. W. 11, 36 S. W. 245; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Goggin, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 667, 77 S. W. 1053." There was no application to the Supreme Court for writ of error in the case just quoted It will be seen that the weight ......
  • Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Blasengame
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1906
    ...not signed or sworn to by the party himself. Barrett v. Featherstone, 89 Tex. 567, 35 S. W. 11, 36 S. W. 245; Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Coggin, 77 S. W. 1053, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 939; Galloway v. Railway (Tex. Civ. App.) 78 S. W. The first paragraph of the court's charge is objected to, because no......
  • First State Bank v. Lawther Grain Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 19, 1924
    ...to the following supporting authorities: Barrett v. Featherstone, 89 Tex. 567, 35 S. W. 11, 36 S. W. 245; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Goggin, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 667, 77 S. W. 1053; Jordan v. Young (Tex. Civ. App.) 56 S. W. 762; Felton v. Talley, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 336, 72 S. W. 614; Orange Rice Mill v......
  • Campbell v. McLaughlin
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1926
    ...W. 11, 36 S. W. 245, 89 Tex. 567; Houston, etc., Co. v. De Walt, 70 S. W. 531, 96 Tex. 121, 97 Am. St. Rep. 877; Texas, etc., Co. v. Goggin, 77 S. W. 1053, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 667. There is no reason for holding that statements or conduct of a party in the progress of a trial, to have evident......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT