The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-01-25
THE MEXICAN NA11oNAL kA,LsuAl


court today:
THE MEXICAN NATIONAL RAILROAD
COMPANY vs.. JAMES O. JAChsON;
suit by Jackson. plaintiff below TO re-
cover Of the railroad company damages
rer personal injuries alleged to nave
been received while he was in the em-
ploy of defendant, from Webb county
FOURTH district-Reversed and dismissed
defendant below, by special plea set III,
and pleaded the laws OF Mexico, alleging
mat the contract for service was entered
mo IN that Republic that the injury oc-
CURED there. and that 1t was therefore
entitled to an adjudication under the laws
OF Mexico. Said laws are alleged TO be so
dissimildr to the laws OF Texas that the
courts OF this State ought not to under
take TO adjudicate them: also, that de-
PENDANT stih owned and operated its line
or railroad in Mexico. aud was subjrct
to the Jurisdiction OF the courts of that
country.
The law Of Mexico. under which plain
tin 5 claim originated. having been pleaded
and proved by the defendant the rights
OF the parties must be determined by its
provisions. 1t would be as unjust to apply
different law as 1t would be to deter
mine the rights of the parties by u differ
tnt transaction. tStory Con. Laws D.
SaJ This is transitory action and may
be maintained In any pace where the de-
tehdAnt Is found, If there be no reason
why the court whose jurisdiction is in
vcked should not entertain the action
L ne plaintm has no legal right to have
MS redress In our courts. Nor f. II spari-
ally a question OF comfy between this
state and the government of Mexico, hut
one Tor the courts Of this State to decide
as TO whether or not the law. by which
the right must be determined Is such
that We can properly and intciilgeutly ad-
minister II, with due regard 10 the rights
OF the parties. "a John, 1874; l Cowei,
49,
The decisions OF this court. well sus-
tnined by high authority, establish the
doctrine that the courts of this State VIII
not undertake to adjudicatc rights which
originate in another state or country.
under statutes materially different from
the law Of this State in relation to the
same subject. al Texas. $50 IS Texas
800 Many difficulties would present
themselves in an attempt to determine the
meaning of the Mexican law ana to apply
1t In giving redress to parties claiming
rights under it. We understand that the
Mexican courts are not governed by pre-
cedcnt, and we have no access TO reports
Of adjudicated cases of those courts from
which We could ascertain their iuterpre-
tatton OF these laws. The language of
some of the articles proved is Ambiguous
and We find great difficulty IN dctermin-
ing what would be pr6per lntorpreta-
same effect TO the language that - Slven
Il In the courts of Mexico There could
be no reasonable certainty tina, the par
ties rights would he adjusted here. as
they would be II the case were tried in
the courts Of Mexico; and it is right of
The parties to have this case determined
by the law MS Fixed by Mexico. This diff
iicu.ty furnishes sufficient reason for the
courts OF this state to decline TO assume
Jurisdiction of this class of cases.
The Mexican National railroad is an
important public highway IN the Republic
OF Mexico by which the commerce OF that
country is largely carried on with our
people. Every judgment rendered against
1t reduces It's revenues which must oil
necessity be restored through its charges
fer transportation of persons and prop
erty II Is but lust that the country
In which 1t Is operated should determine
the charges to be enforced against It. 1t
Texas should open her courts to all per-
sons who may be injured In Mexico In
the management Of that railroad ana
others 1t may seriously affect the means
of commerce between this State and that
Republic. Justice does not demand the
exercise OF the jurisdiction and comfy
would seem to forbid its eNrcisc.
There are at this time two systems OF
railroads extending from the borders OF
this state Into Mexico for several hundred
miles. and we may expect other lines to
be cons tiucted In the same direction. II
our courts assume to adjust the rights OF
the parties against those railroads.
growing out OF such facts as constitute
this case, we will offer an invitation to
all such persons. who might prefer to re-
sort to tribunals in which the rules Of
procedure are more certainly fixed AMI
trial by Jury secured to seek the courts
u this State to enforce their claims. mus
would add to the already cvarhur-
dened condition of our dockets, IN all the
courts and thereby make the settlement
OF rights originating outside the state, "A
charge upon our own people, II the facts
showed that this was necessary In order
10 aocurc Justice, and II the laws were
such AS we could properly enforce. this
consideration would have but little
weight but we feel that it Is entitled 10
be considered where the Plaintiff chooses
this Jurisdiction as Il matter Of oonvcni-
enc6 and not OF necessity The courts
below erred in not di9misslng this case
under the proof made.
Reversed nnd dismissed. opinion ny
Brown j,