Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-22

j. w. STEPHENS, Associate Jusuce
No. 77l. Fort Worth aud Denver city Rail
way company. appellant, vs., L. A. Fuller
appellee. Appeal from county court OF
Wise county,
OPINION.
Appellee sued appellant for damage al
lcgti 10 have been caused TO u lot Of jacks
and ienncts by improper treatment while
being shipped from Murfresbarorgh Tenn
to Decatur Tex. The shipping contract or
bill Of landing was executed by the Nash
Vile, Chattanooga aud ST Louis hallway
company. at Mmffeshorough, nlll was pniie
similar In IT, terms TO the one considered In
tile case OF the halfway company VI. Baird
n Texas, 80. The principal part OF the
damage was caused before the stock reach
ed appellants line and while IL was In the
hands of connecting carriers. Tue peuuon
alleged a partnership aud Joint contract on
the part OF the several carriers handling tue
stock and sought to hold appellant for the
whole damage. Appellant denied such part
nershlp ami joint contract under oath. ANA
denied liability for everything not occurring
On its own line. The court below after
hearing the evidence found In favor OF APP
peee upon these Issues and gave Judgment
Id his favor for the whole damage.
After II careful examination Of the state
mcnt Of fucts we have been unable to mud
that any evidence was Introduced upon this
this case from the Rnir1 case cited above
and the several decisions Of our supreme
cnurt following 1t. and feeling ourselves
hound by these decisions we are constrained
10 reverse the Judgment, regardless Of villa.
our opinion might have been as an original
proposition. As the cas-. viii be remnnded
Tor new trial we deem 1t best not 10 at
tempt II discussion uf the evidence. In Jus.
ticc 10 the learned trial Judge, however, We
viii add that At the tine OF trial before him
the appeal from Ills Judgment was to the
court OF appeals, nud that court had sew.
Urul times decided the evidence Introduced
In this ease sufficient to sustain Il finding
that the several carriers engaged IN this
shipment were partners or Joint contractors
therein IN such sense as to render earh
liable for the negligence Of the others.
Railway W.. Ryan court OF appeals, CIV.
Ca, l3O-i; Railway Va Parish. i'd, N42;
halfway vs.. Fort Id, 1879; Railway vs..
Ferguson ia, l253. Railway vs.. Golding, 3
ID, ~; also see Hallway VS., Tls1ale, "a
Texas, g. In none OF these eases, however,
was the statute Of this state. which requires
railroads under severe penalties to receive
and transport cars and freight tendered 10
them hy another road. aud to which 81
much Importance Is attached In the baird
case, alluded to. While II may be that
more Importance IL attached 10 this statute
IN this line " decisions 10y our supreme
court than we would he disposed tn. accord
u upon principle, yet we are governed by
their opinions, and do not feel disposed 10
undertake to draw distinctions from shades
uf difference Ia tile evidence Introduced Ia
the several eases brought before US, which
should not control In the applications or the
rules Of law Announced therein.
Let the Judgment uf the court below be re-
vcrsed and the cause remanded for Il new
trial. HEAD,
Associate Justice.