Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-07-30

that his adversary appeals to the court of
appeals. and that there the Judgment of the
county court is sustained. Then suppose
that Thompson has d suit involving the
sum OF $1,000 in the district court, and en-
bracing the Identical question that Browns
case does, and that upon the trial Thompson
is defeated, and that he appeals TO the SUI
preme court and that the Judgment o. the
district court is sustained. The difference
as 10 Brown and Thompson Is this: the
former is adiudged 10 have Il valid cause of
action, and is paid the full amount of his
demand, including the costs OF the suit,
while his neighbour, Thompson. is held not
to have 4 cause OF action, and for bringing
his grouudleSS suit he must pay the costs
As practical men Brown and Thompson
come inevitably 10 the conclusion that Il
judicial system in which such contradictory
results are reached contains Il serious vice.
Now. the supposed cases. names and
amounts differing. accord with what has
actually been eXI erleureC. in one case
man shipped goods over several connecting
lines of railway and the initial carrier gave
him bin of lading for the TRANSPORTATION
uf the goods from the initial to the terui-
nal point, but StipUiatiug that for any loss
or damage occurring in ira it only the car
rier in whose custody the goods We're when
lost or damaged should be liable; and the
goods were lost in transit. Upon state of
facts in substance As l nave Just given, the
supreme court held the stipulation valid
and that only the carrier in whose possess
sion the property was when lost was legally
responsible, and that the owner having sued
one OF the carriers in whose possession the
goods were not when LOST. could moi n
cover Upon the same state Uf facts he
court of appeal held the stipulation 10 be
invalid and that each ri the connecting car
riers through whose hands the sooGs
passed was liable Tor the loss irrespective
of where il occurred. and that the owner
was entitled TO recover II a suit brought o.
him against one OF the carriers IN whose
possession he goods were nos when lost
II is JmimpOrtaut Tor the purpose Of this
paper to determine which was right am
which was wrong; ii IS perfectly evidenf
that one of them decided What was the law
and shat the other decided what WAS not
the law. There are other important ques-
lions in respect to which the decisions OF
the two courts are iTrecOn ,llIahir conflict
ing, but it IS not now necessary to mention
them, Tor the example we have given Suffi-
GENTLY illustrates how. III reference TO ,he
same question, we are IN danger of having,
and in fact do sometimes have. two in on
sistent rules Of conduct On account If hay
ing Two courts Of last rcsOr, of %
ordinate Jurisdiction. Surely IL NJ
well-ordered society should such state of
affairs be tOlera. ed. YET I exists n Texas
to-day, and will continue Il exist, unless
tue people in their sovereign capacity 1t the
polls vote il out of BEN. An opportunity
viii be afforded for the exercise ny the poo
pie of this. their high prcrc gatiy7, IN the
second Tuesday IN august. when the pro
posed amendment 20 the judicial artir', of
the constitution vii. DC voted ON. We shall
follow this paper with one or two Others,
III which we shall point out certain other
defects in the eXistn" juGicia article. and
III which wa shall endeavnr to establish
that, il the proposed amendment carries, we
shall have judicial system not c1Iy free
from such defects rs the existing article
contains bat adapted TO the attainment Of
uniformity and stability of Judicial decision.
Re pectfully. y. \. STEDMAN.