Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Donovan

• Decision Date: 01 February 1894
• Citation: 25 S.W. 10
• Parties: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. DONOVAN et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 10

25 S.W. 10

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. DONOVAN et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 1, 1894.

Error from court of civil appeals, second supreme judicial district.

Action by P. J. Donovan & Co. against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment of the court of civil appeals (23 S. W. 735) affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

The sixth assignment of error is as follows: "The court erred in charging that the measure of damage would be the difference in the market value of the sheep in Chicago when they should have been delivered there and when they were actually delivered there. There is no evidence as to when they were actually delivered."

B. G. Bidwell, for plaintiff in error. G. W. Walthall and S. H. Cowan, for defendants in error.

BROWN, J.

Donovan & Co. sued the plaintiff in error to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused to sheep shipped on its line from Toyah to Chicago. The bill of lading limited the liability of the railroad company to its own line. It appears that delay probably occurred on the line of the plaintiff in error, as well as other lines of road over which the sheep passed en route to Chicago. Plaintiffs recovered judgment in the district court, which was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. 23 S. W. 735.

Plaintiff in error presents several grounds of error, upon which this court is asked to reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals. At the time that the shipment was made, the defendant's railroad was in the hands of John C. Brown as receiver, and the first assignment presented is that "the court of civil appeals erred in holding that the railroad company was liable for the negligence of Brown, as receiver." It is too well settled to require authority or argument that the railroad company is liable for the damages occasioned if Brown, as receiver, was liable, not as being liable for his negligence, but because the earnings of the railroad in the receiver's hands were used to make permanent and valuable improvements on the property, which the railroad company has received in its improved condition.

The defendant at the trial asked the court to give to the jury four distinct and separate charges, which embodied different propositions of law. The assignment is that the court "erred in refusing special charges numbered from one to four, inclusive, asked by the defendant." This charge was too general, and the court of civil appeals did not err in refusing...