Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-29
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis of Decisions Rendered at the
Austin Sitting Of the Supreme
Court,
Made Up From the Full and Official Re-
port Of the Rulings and Opinions
Rendered.
comnIlod for tne ansette.

Grayson county. Plaintiffs below zap.
pellees) obtained judgment against
appellant for damage TO cattle shipped
from II, TO $. Upon the question OF
negligence the court charged: III you
believe from the evidence that plain.
tiffs loaded the said cattle on the carr;
that they overloaded the cars, and that
the same was an act Of negligence on
the part of PLAINTIFF, you will find no
damages in consequence OF the injuries
such cattle may have sustained by rea-
son OF such overlooking. Held, error
because II makes the liability Of the |
defendant depend upon the question |
whether the plaintiffs were negligent |
In their own business. Rail- |
roads In this state are |
regarded ~ common carriers, aud the |
statute provided in effect that they |
shall not limit their liability as II tx
ists as common law by inserting ex-
ceptions In bills OF lading, or In any
other manner whatever, land no spec
cial agreement made In contraventi0n
Of the foregoing provisions OF this ar
ticle shall be vAlid.n In substance the
contract In this case obligated the APP
pelleeR, IA a condition precedent 20 the
right TO recover damages, 10 give no
tice In writing OF their claim therefor
to some office OF the appellant or Its
nearest station agent, before removing
the stock from tho place of destination
(S), and before they we're mingled with
other stock. Held that the condition
/ did not contrnvene with the statute.
Reversed and remanded.
Prince va. Railway, from Hays coun-
: ty. The duty of n railway company to
transport passengers safely, and ita
D consequent liability for IA breach OF this
= duty arislng from the negligence OF its
4 servants, does not result alone from the
: consideration paid for the service, but
4 Is imposed by the law even when the
Q service 10 gratuitouH, Smiths Lead.
Gas. 50; II How. ASS. 1t Us enough that
the passenger L. lawfully on the cars
when Injured, and that he w lawfully
"a or unlawfully on them does not nee
esaarlly depend upon his having paid
his fare. Nor does the question OF
d whether or not a passenger Ia lawfully
a on train depend necessarily upon the
q purposes to which the train Is usually
!. devoted. Ii by the rules OF the com-
Al pany passengers nre forbidden to be
/. carried upon particular train, the
presumption In that any one claiming
to be q passenger upon such train II
TO be there. This presumption may be
20 rebutted by showing that while thu
N rules forbid such transportation, yet
:, with the knowledge OF the company
u and without objection on It's part
vi passengers are habitually permitted
&. to take such transportation. The com
ar pany, through Its proper officers, hay
w. Ing The power 10 make these rules, hal
VI the same power, through the sam'
70 officers, TO relax or dispense witt
ve them, and the public Is authorized 4
he consider them dlspensed with whel
~ not practically enforced. The con
va ductor cannot relax regulations with
an out tie consent of the company. i
m follows from the rule laid down In a
,ra Tex. 81, TINT In the absence OF restrict
~ I've rules, and passengers are some
.ser times taken upon cars not general.
devoted TO passenger service, a persoI
who enters such car as u passenger b.
invitation OF the agents In charge
with the expectation OF paying far
/, when demanded, 10 lawfully there
JIG and IL entitled TO Ill the rights OF
regular passenger. Regulation fol
bidding passengers 10 travel on han'
"A cars Ii not shown In this Gaze, but ol
a, the contrary II is shown that sucl
Nv cars were sometimes used In that sery
ne Ice. In sustaining the special de
Tor murrer 10 the petition, the court IN ef
ok feet held that the railway did no
ms commonly transport passengers upol
dy hands cars. and the appellant was Ia
IN jured while being transported gratuit
ously at the invitation OF the CON
he pany's agents upon one Of these cars
n. He could not recover though the In
adj jury happened through the negligence
10, OF the companies employees In charg
no OF the cur, and In this action the cOur
nv erred. Reversed and rcmanded.
ne Half a. Bro. vs.. Douglas OF al, from
Guadalupe county. IN no buildln
had ever been erected ON that part o
al lot In controversy there can be quea
~ ton that IL had been 30 used and wa
es 30 situated ~ 10 make 1t part Of Tia
Vas Homestead OF Douglas and family. !
." part OF II Is and has been ut all time
used as passage 10 the back lot an
otherwise. This house constructed OF
the part OF tho LOT Ia controversy Is N
more than one or more rooms, part o
which Ii clearly homestead, OF wbicI
ire IL Ia admitted there has been n
m abandonment This IN practically
M case in which one or more rooms Of |
wv homestead have been rented 10 others
H., and unless that could take from 10 II
homestead character, II IL stili home
In etead. That this could not be u TO
ra- plain, unless facts showing an aban
Of donment Of 80 much Of the homestead
ok we're proved, and this not claimed
Affirmed.
IN schram OF NJ. VS.. Gentry, from
I'D Guadalupe county. Objection tina
its the statement Of The nature Of Tn
IL plaintif's demand ia the citation dli
tn not contain all the material avermeni
ne Of a good citation Ii not well taken
~, But the sherlffls return on the sam
was fatally defective. The citation
was iszned 10 r.. y r.. o., Jr,, aud q
II. =. The return shows service upol
TO the two last, by delivering 10 them u
ID. person trtie copy OF the writ. ~ doe
IN. not show that he delivered q true cop
~ | Ia each ~ iheae defendauta IA fe0uiTei