Case ID: sw_176/html/0749-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HIGGINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOUSTON, E. & W. T. RY. CO. v. HOUSTON PACKING CO.
    (No. 446.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    April 29, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied May 20, 1915.)
    Appeal and Error <§=>263 — Bill op Exceptions — Necessity.
    Assignments complaining of the refusal of special charges will be overruled, where no bill of exceptions was taken to their refusal, as required by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1516-1523, 1525-1532; Dec. Dig. <§=>263.]
    Appeal from Harris County Court; Clark C. Wren, Judge.
    Action by the Houston Packing Company against the Houston East & West Texas Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lane, Wolters & Storey and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, all of Houston, for appellant. Hutcheson & Hutcheson, of Houston, for appellee.
   HIGGINS, J.

The Houston Packing Company brought this suit to recover of appellant damages arising out of the shipment of a car of meat from Houston, Tex., to Pitts-burg, Pa. The damage is alleged to have been due to delay in transit and insufficient re-icing. 'Prom a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the Railway Company appeals.

Appellant was the initial carrier, and the bill of lading which is issued, among other things, provided that the shipment was to be properly re-iced when necessary while in transit. Appellee furnished the car containing the shipment.

It is assigned as error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, it being contended in the supporting propositions that the car containing the shipment was improperly constructed as to insulation, that the evidence disclosed the car had been properly re-iced while in transportation, and that there was no unreasonable delay in transit. No good purpose can be served by detailing and discussing the evidence. It is sufficient to support a finding adverse to appellant upon each of the issues presented in support of its assignments upon this phase of the case.

Those assignments complaining of the refusal of special charges are overruled, for the reason that no bill of exception was taken to their refusal, as required by chapter 59, Acts of 33d Legislature.

Affirmed.