Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-10-31
-ff11RTsx OF LAST RESORT.
III THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.
r.,fncd questions I'm n Shit 10 Re-
.,ver Damages in IA suit for
peIay-Chace Versus gregg.

- ,ha opinions delivered by the supreme
court today:
myr MISSOURI. KANSAS AND TEXAS
% WAY CO., OF TEXAS, APPEL
IaNT US. JOHN II. BELCHER, AP-
ptfJrT: certified questions, In n suit
- recover damages for delay In deliver
~. freight from Cooke county. Second
District
anpellee brought this suit to recover,
,mong other damages. special damages
Emitting from the failure Of the railway
ser-nany 10 deliver promptly a load OF
snit,n seed meal. to be used in feeding
Ina The cattle were being fed at
rsin.sylllc and the cotton seed meal was
shInped 10 that point from Sherman
Tsras Before the bill of iadlng was
srued by appellants agent In Sherman.
sspelloe told its agent at Gainesville Of
Ms speelal damage that would result to
him from delay and asked that the ship
,ncut be expedited. The Gainesville agent
Al once notified appellants train-master
BIZ telegram.
Was notice TO the agent at Gainesville
notice TO the company
me general rule Is that notice to tho
agent is notice to the principal.
Tho word agent, as used in this rule.
means tho person who has power to act
for the principal with reference to the
very SuuleNl HuAAtI " MllANH Allt lOliNt
relates, and docs not include person
who has no such power. though he may
have power to act for the principal with
reference TO similar subjects. The words
nFent and act are from the some root,
and the above limitation Of the use of the
former ls Inherent in Its derivation.
Prfma faole, the station agent at Gaines
] vile had no power to act for his company
n reference TO the making OF the ron
4 - at Il Inv Mt 1Na -
from Sherman. The car did not come
4 within the apparent Jcope of his agency
f until II reached Gainesville. 1t follows
that notice to him was not notice to the
\ company under the facts OF this case.
4 10 Texas $40; GO Texas COZ So Texas 125:
. s. W. Rep. iO5O.
Was 1t within the scope of the Agency
. Of the Gainesville agent to transmit
the Information he received to the agent
4 at Sherman? For similar reasons to those
rtted above, we are Of the opinion that
Il Il was no.. We know Of no principle of
a law requiring an employe to transmit TO
4 eno,her employe OF common en-
4 ployer, Information given him by a
: stranger In reference to business beyond
= The scope OF his agency or that Will i'm
pate knowledge OF such information 10
The other employe, or TO the master,
3 upon failure to so transmit. We there
N fore answer both branches Of the first
+ Question in tho negative.
N Tho second and third questions nro
Iouhlsd are not based upon any facts
found by the court OF civil apncals. ne
eelhg shown by the record before them,
out the second is based upon the suppo-
Auon mat the train-master had notice.
I We thlrd upon the supposltion that
Y had no notice before the contract was
signed. We are not authorized by ~.
A'u'e TO pass upon any question ceriI-
XVI, ihIess II arises In case pending
~ court OF ciVll appeals. 1t is EVIL
s,sis uSt thv Two supposed states OF facts
pon WNleh the two questions are based
~ ,So eAst, ana that, therefore. one
NJ ~, O. W.. ISSUES OF law presented
oo,, ny arise IN case pending before
sunstsncsse 't" MPpeals.' Under the cir
r. NJ t,,s1,s would be nm assumption
!snsdietion for us to answer either Of
ontsIa seTns
81 ~ Dehman' j. ~
6|Jn7N CIR, ~,
Ia W w,t !, e. y, n,LAiNTIFF IN ERROR.
fX AN,rs ~ t,y ,ish5cf ET AL, DEFEND
"a frnm 40. NEhoh; suit to remove cloud
ri Dls,r,e, from Harris county. First
t Darlns cr,,..,
f<,usband gss ma Mary A. Gregg were
l5rade vii, &, "ng. AZ MS death Gregg
~ % Htl IN which he assumed to dis
"A ~ VI ms separate property, and also
"a lmssl, ~, property belonging to
property hstD,,s. rms VIII divided the
5lfeYy g. 'Vn Mrs. gregg and VIM. y.
iormer msrrla 80" 81 the testator by a
lake nniss .s' mrs Gregg elected to
$liesd ,,non e WIN and subsequently
ween hsraats purtitlon OF tho property be-
hn uas r,as "hu step-son. This parti-
ach nat n'uue ny warranty deeds from
herr vas 70 we other. For the Will
lirs f,rea,. ~. Express condition that II
u possassf,, s""u'u NE without Issue, and
Eeyispd !. Vi any OF the property SO
|houla % uen that said property
|ir c.. W mtn Gregg or to his heirs.
M at,s,es 1'vu without issue and by
|haoa ha.P 10 devise her property 10
ChscS u secohd husband.
er,nSor.la 'his under this will and the
Il In. c.. ei ,I through their father,
psrt ~ 81 ne property IN controversy
PArus NAT 1lsposed or by the viii of
,.sned ~ and by deed OF partition
4 |t,det ava mrs Gregg. There was
ke cour, b, yuusrnent Tor defendants in
farned ~, I've hnu this Judgment was
The writ .e court OF civil appeals.
4 ranted NJ, vi error In this case was
yl nn,sa,H we oellef that the court of
nor 1sfsna erred In holding that The
Z Warranty Of thel' nas stopped by
(M tS., ssamlnatlon we have concluded
= 'I nsn Of VIM. Il. Gregg did not lake
at nndsr T. 90 tne heirs OF their father.
lheFefors ,s nc WIN OF their grandfather.
ud not eston , ,han, OF Wm. b. Gregg