Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-07-26
405-407 Houston.
404 Main Street,

district court is sustained. The difference
as to Brown and Thompson is this the
former is adjudged to have Il valid cause OF
action, and is paid the full amount of his
demand, including the costs of the suit,
while his neighbor, Thompson, IS held not
To have d cause of action. Ind for bringing
his groundless suit ne must pay the costs.
As practical men Brown and Thompson
come inevitably 10 the conclusion that
judicial system in which such contradictory
results are reached contains serious vice.
Now the supposed cases. names and
amounts differing. accord with what has
actually been experienced. In one case 4
man shipped goods over several connecting
lines of railway and the initial carrier gave
him q bill of lading for the transportation
of the goods from the initial to the termI-
nal point, but stipuating that for any loss
or damage occurring in transit only the car
rier in whose custody The goods were when
lost or damaged should be liable; and the
goods were lost in transit. Upon state of
facts in substance is | have just given, the
supreme court held the stipulation valid
and that only the carrier i'll whose possess
sion the property was when lost was legally
responsible and that the owner having sued
one of the carriers in whose possession tho
goods were not when lost, could not re-
cover Upon the same state OF facts the
court of appeals held the stipulation to De
invalid and that each of the connecting car
rierS through whose hdndS the goods
passed, was liable for the loss irrespective
of where it occurred, and that the owner
was entitled to recover in a suit brought by
him against one of the carriers in whose
possession the goods were not when lost.
1t is unimportant for the purpose of this
paper to determine which was right and
which was wrong; it is perfectly evident
that one of them decided what was the law
and that the other decided what was not
the law. There are other important ques-
tions in respect to which the decisions OF
the two courts are irreConciliably conflict
ing, but it is not now necessary to mention
them, for the example we have given suf1-
GENTLY illustrates how, in reference to the
same question, we are in danger of having,
and in fact do sometimes have, two incOn-
sistent rules of conduct on account OF hav-
ing two courts of last resort OF co..
ordinate jurisdiction. Surely N no
well-ordered society should such state OF
affairs be tolerated. Yet it exists a Texas
to-day, and will continue to exist, unless
the people in their sovereign capacity at the
polls vote it out of being. An opportunity
will be afforded for the exercise by the peo-
pie OF this, their high prerogative, on the
second Tuesday in August, when the pro-
posed amendment to the judicial article OF
the constitution Will be voted on We shall
follow this paper with one or two others,
in which we shall point out certain other
defects in the existing judicial article. and
In which we shall endeayor to establish
that, If the proposed amendment carries, we
shall have judicial system not only free
from such defects as the existing article
contains, but adapted TO the attainment Of
uniformity and stability of judicial decision.
Respectfully, y. A. STEpNAS.