Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-10
AUSTIN COURT OF CIVIL APP.
pEAIS


company vs., J r. Thompson IT al from
Coleman. Suit for damages for failure
TO curry safely live stock from Coleman
to Memphis Tenn. The terms Of the
contract OF shipment limited the liability
Of the appellant to such damages as Oc-
CURED On rs own line and after ver-
diet was given for anpellccs motion
for new trial was made and OyerrulCd.
This Is assigned as error fret because
the contWct Of shipment was not a thor
ough contract OF shipment. second, be
cause defendant, II said contract was
through contract had the right to limit
It's liability hs u exists at common law
~ Interstate traffic, aud the contract
limiting rs liability To injuries occur
ring GA It's own line of road rs now under
rcpVntcd decisions of our supreme court
CONTRACTS similar 60 the one at bar have
been held valid "a Texas BOZ and eases
Citcd1 For che SECOND reason stated the
assignment of error must be- sustained
and the Judgment reversed The con-
tract being ratio, 10 follows that appel
liant Is not liable tor any loss or injury
except such as WAS sustained un its
own rond Opinion hy Justice Key
Gulf Houston aud Santa Fe Railroad
company Va. III. Gross from Lampasas.
Suit Tor damages for injuries alleged TO
have been caused by defective platform
aud stops leading thereto of one ~ APP
ncllants dep0ts the appellee being nc the
time no the depot waiting To take passage.
Appellants claimed that appellee WIS
under the ipHueucr of liuuor at the time,
that no fell on the platform 10y reason
of this fact aud hence was guilty of
cputuhut0ry negligence To rcbut this
charge appellee offered the testimony OF
witnesses To the ofcct that they had
mover seen tile plaintiff intoxicated or
under the influence of liquor To auch an
extent az 10 smggcr. The admission ut
Ia tl.l
testimony WIS admissible Tho question
involved To- certain extent. one ui
habit 10 Is permissible 10 ascertain
from those that arc acquainted with
the habits and conduct OF the appellee
| whni c0Cct, IL amy, imhibiug mtoNicAutR
would have ON him, such general cilpct
would hc admissible uH circumstance
| 10 ho considered hy the Jury in discrciit
| Ing the testimony Of witnesses for np
| pcllunt as 10 uppulloos condition at that
| time.
Tho following charge was given and
/ assigned as error, "lt was the duty of
| the defendant COMPANY Co provide reason.
able accommodations nt thcir stations for
| passengers tu travel on its trains IL
| was its duty tu keep la n safe condition
| nll portions of their platforms and up-
pfuuchcs thereto. TO which the public do
| Or would naturally resort for the purpose
of boarding their TRINA This required
|
| warrants. Common TrricrR are not in
surcrs az Ca the safety OF The passenger
| to this extent The effect of this chnrT
| is 90 make them So and for tliiH reason
| the Judgment rs reversed aud thc cause
remained opinion boy Fisher G.. y.
Lcvah ct al w.. Snyder "l al from
from Tom green ON ihr l3th
cuted deed of trust 90 secure j. H.
| Glass Under this sale after the snlc
was advertised uu Oct \, the land Wns
anld on the 18th tf oct aud bought In
| hy appellants. On Oct 4 1885, Hut exc
cuted "a deed 90 Snyder la trust for the
purpose ct ndcmniiying wud Snyder
ngninst loss 10y reason of his going on
fmt's note for the sum Uf SluOOO
In this decd Snyder WIS authorized To
| take possession of uud control on thc
| lands, 10 nell the snme publicly on rn-
| yntely in such manner aud az such tmrh
ns he might see ft sO us 10 best answer
ntd Wbscrvc the purposes of HE trust.
Oue of the npprlcos, the Park Land aud
Cattle company held under decd from
Snydor n is Cuutuudod that tho iustru-
| Suvdpr II is coutrudcd that the iurttu.
mrnt under which Tits deed was inndc
wps simply q decd of trust aud did not
confer such power ON him us to allow
him t0 make such q decd This cuntcn-
| ton as not good, Tie decd ut trust iH
1
Snyder to TAKE possession nnl control
of the lands nnd % use them ns hr
would his own properly, Tie second
ueston presented by appellant ~ that
no tender was made by nppcllceH Of inc
amount of purchase paid hy appellants
nt the trustees snlo under which they
hold llpmhursug the appellants was
moi duty required Of upprllocs ns u
predicate 10 maintaining this action.
fhhe interests are adverse; Snyder
claimed that the sale under which appel
lnuta claim rs absolutely void. The last
question rs, was this sale noted. The
deed Of trust required ten days puullth-
ton before sale and the hrst punnen-
tiou was nude on the 18Th Of oct. nnd thc
snlc took place on the 1911. I'hiH could
NOT bo ten days because the day upon
,vhirh the advertisement iR FIRST pub
Ushcd n to be- excluded in computing
Inc time WHOM the publication begins,
Tho sale was hold void 10y the lower
coutf There ~ no error in the find
Jugs and The Judgment " affirmed. opih-
Ion by Fisher, chief Justice
Western Union Telegraph company Vs.
Sbtunir from CoyGl Suit for damages
| lor mnurp 10 transmit and deliver a
Telegram The line Of the western
Union Telegraph company extended 10
Snn Bofnnrdna. Cal, and no further,
thp company relied ON Che Culiiornin
Southern Hallway company Tor uhhs-
,ni9sion of mossnres "a Ocenusdc, over
M ufiyntr iueF Ia November, 1881
sbunntr received iettOr from g. j.,
lehman with u request 90 join him IN
"A leaap Of land The Telegram was hb
follows "ClOsp the trade, / VIII come
| soon" ShWntn told tho nRent nt intes-
Vile ~ the importance of the message
plaintiff moved with his family to
oreanslde. and learning thnt the tele,
gratu had not been received aud that Tho
trade was off he moved back 10 Gates-
,ille 80 claimed damages for loss oc-
cnFonod by failure 10 make tie trnde,
Ina by selling On some ~ his effects ne
Texas az q sacrifice and expenses ia
golng 10 and returning with HE family.
INC three items were excepted 20 ana
Inc court sustained the exception 10 the
llrst bat oVef-ruled the exceptions as 90
| the other two. The exception 10 the
claim cnusod By selling effects az q
| sorrirce should have been sustained.
sbn damnges are too remote and could
| not have been contemplated by the
nnrties. Plaintiff was not bound 10 sell
| INA uropprty and defendant would not be
responsible for the price Il brought The
| relation Of this expense incurred by
travel TO a breach Of obligation on the
part Of the defendant IL such as 70 con-
stitute them legitimate damages. Hut
appellant insists that ~ liability was
limited The testimony shows that the
telegram was written on letter head OF
gehlev Bros a Co, and not upon the
| forms Of the company, Deifudnui q