The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-06-29
HIGHER COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.


lived at Taylor. His wife was tn,
daughter of N. B. Garsuch. The basis
OF the suit was negligence in deliver
ing telegram 10 Carter, sent from
Smithville, saying: "W. b. Garsuct
is dead. Answer" The places were
only 30 miles apart. If the message
had been delivered promptly Garter
could have reached Smithville before
the burial. He had the remains re.
inferred at cost of 500. The opera.
tors did not know the relationship ex.
listing between Carter ard Garsuch
The district court gave judgment for
25 cents paid for sending the message,
$50 incurred in removing the remains
of Garsuch and $1,000 for mental suffer.
ing caused to Mrs. Carter. The court
of civil appeals affirmed the judg-
ment. 1t is assigned that the court
erred in holding defendant charged
with notice of relationship between
Carter and Garsuch. AS to Mrs. Car
ter the objection is well taken. She is
not mentioned in the message, nor
was there any actual notice OF her re-
lationship (Tel. Co. vs. Kirkpatrick
rs, 24). AS to Carter himself the OBJ.
lection Is not good. The only case
supporting such contention is Tele.
graph Company vs.. Brown, II Tex,
which has been practically overruled
by all succeeding cases involving this
point, and is here expressly overruled
From the rules laid down in the de-
cisions of this court this plan and lust
rule may be deduced. The telegraph
company is chargeable with notice OF
the relationship that exists, if any
between all parties named in the mes.
sage, and with notice of such purposes
as may be reasonably inferred from
the language used in connection with
the subject, matter of the communica-
ton taking into consideration the
usual manner of expressing messages
sent by this means, (Tel. Co. VS..
Adams, rs Tex; Tel. Co. vs.. Moore,
rs Tex 1t is also contended that the
damages awarded are not such rs
could be deemed to have been In con-
temptation of the parties. This objec-
ton is we'll taken. The 500 allowed
for exhuming the body cannot be re-
garded as proximately the result of
the failure to deliver the message.
Neither could the manner and place
of burial of Garsuch be considered au
element of damage. The judgments
of the district court and the court of
civil appeals are reversed and rem
dered for w. S. Garter for % cents and
costs of the district court and against
him for the costs of this court and the
court of civil appeals. Opinion by
Brown, A. j.
A. Schloss vs.. Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway Company, from Ell
Paso. Certified questions from the
court of civil appeals for the Third
district: Eirst-When the owner of
goods shipped to their destination by
railroad tenders to it the amount OF
the freight charges, but such amount
is not shown by the bill of lading, is q
refusal to deliver the goods violation
of the statute? Article 425S a, Sec. g.
Sayles Civil Statutes. Second Was
the expense account furnished by the
company to plaintiff after the ar
rival of the goods at their des-
tination, showing the AMOUNT of
the freight charges due, part of the
bill of lading within the meaning of
the statue. Article $50 of che Revised
Civil Statutes provides that a bill of
lading shall be given the shipper de-
handing it and sets out what such
bill of lading shall contain. The ex.
pense account is bill of particulars
of services rendered by the company,
The first is in law a contract but the
second is made by the road alone. 1t
the bill of lading referred to some
other instrument it would be suffi-
Gent (22 s. w. r. 1S4.) Answering
the second question, first, we do not
think the expense account was part
of the bill of ladipg. The act OF May
6, 1882, contains three sections. Arts.
250a, sections l, 2 and 3 Sayles Stat
utes.) They must be considered to-
gether. This act is both remedia.
and penal-whether the one or tie
other the right of action is strictly
statutory (63 Tex, 407 There is 10
ambiguity in the act. The caption
shows that one of its leading pur-
poses was to punish the failure to per-
Jill NhO dupJ hO W
be recovered is an arbitrary sum as
shown by the bill OF Iading. 1t is a
penalty in every respect, as much as
If it had been so declared, and was
intended as punishment of the rail-
road company for violation of the
law. The language is plain and each
time it is "The amount due as shown
in the. bill of lading."
In order to recover the penalty pre-.
scribed the shipper must bring him.
self strictly within the re. uirements
of this statute. The petition in this
case having failed to allege the nee
essary facts did not show violation
of the law or right to recover. Opin-
ion by Brown, A. j.
Galveston, Harrisburgh and San
Antonio Railroad company vs. Wesch,
from Guadalupe. This case was
brought up by writ of error to the
court of civil appeals for the Third dis
trict. The suit was for damages for
injuries received. There was ver-
dict for $500. In the trial court the
plaintiff, when on the witness stand,
was asked to approximate the ex-
penses incurred by him on account of
his iniIlripa He answered. Ovar oh