Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-11-28

tempted TO exercise the agency ,,,,r 81, 4.
thai ' nlsl,,,,,,99 nd. VIC are OF The opinion
Affirmed. any 'hVorest theroln.
Opinion by Denman. J.
! J. T.; DAVIS EFT Al. Va. JUAN p,pcrs
- AL certified questions in n ami ~
EEeapnss 70 Try title. from Bcxar counly
Fourth district Ne"'S'
| Inc appellants. rs heirs Of Thos. n.
Hichois. sued 20 recover iii acres OF land.
Appeiiees claim through a transfer OF a
conditional certificate from Nichols 10 II.
u. Wyne, The following unconditional
iahd certificate was introduced IN evil.
| dcnce by sppellees.
sac CT Texas Guadalupe county--,rh,a
Is TO certify that Robt II. wyne present.
ca to tho honorable the county court on
ouhdaiupo county the conditional ccr,in,
c chte q Thos; Il. Nichols. being second
commissioners OF Gonzaies COMFY ana
~ oi,opei IL, NV. and JaA. Day and
s sTgIna hiy That the said Ihos. r. Nichols
heptember 1881. and Continued to resldc
sneIein US citizen for more thar three
Ana IN anu nntl his death. In the year lsis.
regular transfer from the said n II, Neil.
~. ~, consequently this unconditional cor
.incatc V issued to the heirs or legal ,cp-
ncrea a, Yes q said Il. r. Nichols for tio
oues,ion-1s the recital In the certificate.
t .n Myne presented to tile board OF land
Thos. r.. Nichols, evidence OF me trans
lsr OF the conditional certificate ffoin
mos. u. Nichols to r. II. wyne?
We are OF the opinion that the solution
OF ms question depends upon the lnqulsy
whether or not the court Who granted tiic
unconditional certificate had the power 10
uetern,ih. me oWnership o. the right aud
10 grant tho certificate 20 the nsslgneei
Atter review OF the legislation on this
fubgeci and OF the decisions OF this court
bearing thereon, we are OF the opinion
that the court by which the certificate In
controversy was issued had the power 10
near an application for an unconditional
csruncate on behalf Of the assignee OF
Fhe conditional grant, and TO determine
whether "A lawful assignment had been
made or not. and we think II follow that
theft finding, as shown by the face OF tho
fer OF the conditional certificate. Is. Ms
between the parties claiming under IL,
evidence OF the fact SO reeitod. 90 Texas.
as. " Texas, ii2)
Opinion BY Gaines. C. ].
HOUSTON DIRECT NAVIGATION COM
r,ANn Us, lNSlLRANCE COMPANY OF
damage for value OF cotton lost ~
IRE. while IN the custody OF the nnvi-
gation company from Galveston coun-
cd '''' - ''' A'' ''''''"u-
The Insurance Company Of North Amer
lea sued the Direct Navigation company
TO recover tho value OF certain cotton
destroyed by FIRE while In the possession
OF the navigation company; the insur-
once company havlrg paid the loss TO
the owners Of the cotton, which had been
rhlpped from Houston on u barge belong
lng to the navigation company, and IN
low. Tho plalltin claimed 10 be hubro-
gated to the r.gats OF the owners.
Two questions are presented by the as
slEnments OF error ~ fC-.ONs.
/. Was tho Direct Navigation company
engaged IN interstate commerce white
transporting The cotton In question from
Houston 10 GaiNtatou2
2. Dii the provision In Its charter "tnat
II should be subject. In the transportation
Of freight 10 the laws applicable 10 com
mon carriers. operate 70 make 1t lRb.c
under the laws OF the State for the loss
sustained, Notwithstanding the limitation
contained In tho Bill OF ladi1g and the
eNNemption provided BY the atatutes Of the
/. No distinct and certain definition Of
interstate commerce has yet been fixed
by the decisions OF the COURTS and perhaps
cascs. But the law as applicable 10 THIS
case. dcducib.c from the decisions. may
be stated thus; When commodity has
been delivered to u common carrier TO
be transported on a continuous voyage
or trip TO q point beyond the limits OF
the State where delivered, tho character
OF interstate or fore sn COMMERCE at
iaches thereto. The facts Of this case
show that the owners OF the cotton liyed
In Liverpool, and the Gotten itself was
put in transportation by delivery 10 the
navigation company TO DO carried by II
to the city OF Galveston, and there de-
llyered 70 the Mallory line, by which It
thence. by connecting line Of steamers.
TO Liverpool. There can he no doubt that
the deetlnation Of the cotton, at the time
OF It's delivery to the nayigat on company
was fixed and determined, and the point
OF Its nnal delivery was beyond the state,
1t was equally clear. that continuous
between Houston and Galveston was sim
ply q part OF that voyage, Upon this
state n facts, the cotton would undouD,-
cd,y como with In the rule cited above.
and would be classed as interstate COM
mprco.
But It Is shown that the NAVIGATION
company gave a bill OF ladlug TO CALVES
ton only, and that the charges FOR freight
10 Galveston and for Wharfage at that
place were paid At the time that the cot
the rule aud constitute this local Fh!p-
ment IA distinguished from Interstate or
foreign commerce?
only 10 Galveston establishes sinnly that
the liability Of the company term mated
at that polnt, and has tho same enec',
boen given hy the receiving carrier wi b
the stipuiaii6n TINT It's liability should
terminate when delivered to the connect
I've do not understand that II IL neees-
earv tnnt an OF the carriers engaged ~
an interstate or foreign shipment thnll
he parties to the contract Of shipment ior
the entire route. In fact the Character
OF the commerce In not affected ny the
terms OF the contract Of the carrier, e.
oept only In so far as II SHOWS tnat " -
or Is not part Of the coni.nu US carr
age from tue point OF snipinen1 10 inc
pUlnt OF destination.
case was i.terstase or forsaeii eSmlneIIt.
ana that tAe laoiilty tor 1888 must Dc
qetermlned ny thu rules OF law estAs-
ushed By congress, unless the pToNlals.h
az the charter before Quosel optIhtu
subject tne corporation N me cafiiAg9 ~
Interstate comflsrce 10 the statues Vi
Nc believe that the proper construction
of tho language used In tho chart'r "
s.mt-.y 10 yA.Iess as mater OF tAM
thnt Il Ia 10 be regarded as common
CARRIER and as sucn Is 10 be SUBJ ="
vnatever law may be appieaole 70 = co'',
mon carer In the busineas IN winch l..
NAV 10 engaged. The eHectA ~ u.'s
sta fttory declaration Is to reneNe pe.ssnss
VINO may nave claims against u ~ ~ ~
necessity Of establishing US cnh'a IN a
a common carrier. ana 10 MAKE y ~, ~
ics inflicted In the transac ION OF " ~, ~
,,oss II Is not necessary 10 dete,l i, ~
no validity n such provision, tVu ~
10 be h coshict with me lsHs ,ha
iy,tted STATES. We simply hold tnat ,, 80,
y, 800 90 mated does not nave tnf tiltsss