Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Adams

• Decision Date: 07 November 1890
• Citation: 14 S.W. 666
• Parties: TEXAS & PAC. RY. CO. v. ADAMS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

14 S.W. 666

TEXAS & PAC. RY. CO. v. ADAMS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 7, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Red River county; E. D. McCLELLAN, Judge.

Geo. F. Burdett, for appellant.

HENRY, J.

This suit was brought by the appellee to recover damage to her wearing apparel and household goods. The suit was originally brought against John C. Brown, as receiver of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, and the petition charged that the damage to the property occurred while he was in possession of and operating said road as such receiver. By an amended petition plaintiff charged that subsequently to the wrong done her the defendant Brown was discharged from the receivership, and that all property and funds in his hands at the date of his discharge were turned over to said corporation. The railroad company was, by amendment, made a party defendant, and appeared and answered. The cause was discontinued as to the defendant Brown. A judgment was rendered against the railroad company. The petition showed that Brown was receiver under the appointment of a court that had jurisdiction to make it. If facts existed making the railroad company liable for the payment of losses that occurred while it was being operated by the receiver, they were neither alleged nor proved. For this cause the judgment must be reversed. The bill of lading contained a stipulation to the effect that "claims for loss or damages must be presented to the delivering line within thirty-six hours after the arrival of the freight." The testimony showed that the plaintiff's residence was within a few hundred yards of the depot at which the freight was received; that she received it on Saturday afternoon, and did not open the trunk and box in which the goods were packed until the following Monday morning; and that she was sick during the interval. The court, we think, fairly and correctly submitted to the jury the question whether the stipulation with regard to the time within which the claim was required to be made was a reasonable time. It was proper to submit that issue to the jury, instead of its being decided, as a question of law, by the court, as appellant contends it should have been. The goods were shipped at Bowling Green, Ky., upon the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, and a through bill of lading was given by that railroad to the point of destination on the Texas & Pacific Railroad. Another assignment of error reads as follows: "The court erred in failing to charge the law upon...