Case Name: CHICAGO & G. W. RY. CO. et al. v. PLANO MILLING CO. et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-04-23
Citations: 214 S.W. 833
Docket Number: No. 2114
Parties: CHICAGO & G. W. RY. CO. et al. v. PLANO MILLING CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 214
Pages: 833–838

Head Matter:
CHICAGO & G. W. RY. CO. et al. v. PLANO MILLING CO. et al.
(No. 2114.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
April 23, 1919.
On Motion of Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas for Rehearing, July 3, 1919.
Dissenting Opinion, July 5, 1919.)
1. Carriers <§=108 — Carrier Issuing Bill oe Lading to S. on Changing Routing at S. Not-Insurer oe Good Condition at P.
A carrier which never undertook to transport a carload of corn further than S., by changing the routing of the corn, without notation on the bill of lading', did not become an insurer of its arrival in good condition at P.
2. Carriers <§=116 — Connecting Carrier’s Delay in Transportation Proximate Cause oe Injury to Shipment.
■Where the proximate cause of injury to a carload of corn was the failure of one of the railroads which carried it to comply promptly with the request of the original consignee of the car to carry it to another point than it was originally billed to, which resulted in a delay of about one month, the railroad was liable as for a breach of its undertaking to transport to a new destination and make delivery within reasonable time, as evidenced by the bill of lading issued to the original consignee by its agent.
3. Carriers <§=47(2) — Carrier Attempting
to Perform Unauthorized Contract by Agent Liable eor Injuries by Delay. Where a railroad’s agent exceeded authority in issuing bill of lading purporting to hind the road to transport over connecting lines property it had not and never afterwards acquired possession of, but the road, by attempting to perform, adopted its agent’s act, it was liable for damage resulting from negligent failure to transport and deliver within reasonable time.
On Motion of the Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas for Rehearing.
4. Carriers <§=47(2) — Authority oe Agent oe Connecting Carrier to Issue Bill oe Lading Determined.
It was within the scope of the authority of a railroad’s agent to issue a bill of lading binding it to take up a carload of corn from its connecting carrier and to continue the carriage, from its destination under bill of lading issued by the original carrier to a new destination.
5. Carriers <§=69(2) — Seeking Relief Because of Mistake, Must Plead it.
To have entitled a railroad company to relief, against its contract to transport a carload of corn, on the ground of mistake, the road must have set up such mistake in its pleadings.
Hodges, J., dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, Collin County; F. E. Wilcox, Judge.
Suit by the Plano Milling Company against the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company and others, wherein J. G. Puterbaugb intervened. From judgment for the inter-vener, the named defendant and another appeal.
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed and rendered in part.
This was a suit for damages, brought by the Plano Milling Company against the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé .Railway Company, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas, the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, and the Walker Grain Company, in which J. G. Puterbaugh, having purchased of said Plano Milling Company the claim forming the basis of its suit, intervened, and in which judgment was rendered as follows: (1) That the milling company take nothing by its suit; (2) dismissing the Walker Grain Company, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company from the suit; (3) in favor of the intervener Puter-baugh against the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company and ¿he Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas for $1,292.35. The appeal is by the two railway companies' last mentioned. The correctness of the judgment in so far as it denied the milling company a recovery and dismissed the Walker Grain Company, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company from the suit is not questioned by any of the parties to the appeal, and will be affirmed without respect to whether it is correct in other respects or not.
Facts as follows were found by the trial court: February 24, 1912, the Burke Grain Company of St. Joseph, Mo., delivered to the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company at that place a car of corn it (the grain company) had sold to the Walker Grain Company of Ft. Worth, Tex. The railway company at the same time delivered to the Burke Grain Company a bill of lading, showing the corn to have been “consigned to the order of said Burke Grain Company at Sherman, Tex., notify Walker Grain Co.” The routing of the car specified in the bill of lading was over the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway from Kansas City to Sherman. In compliance with a request of the Burke Grain Company made February 27, 1912, the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company changed the routing of the car, delivering same to the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Eé Railway Company at Kansas City, instead of to the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, for transportation to Sherman. The change in the routing of the car was not noted on the original bill of lading covering it, but the Atchison, Topeka & Kansas Railway Company took charge of it solely because requested to do so by the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company. The com was carried from Kansas City over the Atchison, Topeka & Kansas Railway, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway, and the Houston & Texas Central Railway to Sherman, where it arrived March 12, 1912. A draft by the Burke Grain Company for the purchase price of the corn, attached to the bill of lading issued by the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company when presented to the Walker Grain Company by a Ft. Worth bank, was paid by the grain company, but when it was so presented and paid does not appear from the record, except that it must have been on or before February 29, 1912, for on that day the Walker Grain Company presented the bill of lading to the agent at Ft. Worth of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas, with a request that the car of corn be forwarded to Plano, Tex. Said agent thereupon took up said bill of lading, and issued to the Walker Grain Company in lieu thereof the bill of lading of the Missouri,-Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas calling for the delivery of the car of corn at Plano, Tex., “to the order of Walker Grain Company, notify Plano Milling Company, Plano, Tex.” Across the face of this bill of lading a notation as follows was written: “Issued in lieu C. G. W. St. Joseph B/L dated 2/24. The Walker Grain Company attached a draft on the Plano Milling Company for the amount of the purchase price of the corn to the bill of lading issued by the agent of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas, as stated, which was' paid by said milling company when presented to it by a bank in Plano. Immediately on arrival of the corn in Sherman March' 12, 1912, the agent there of the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company notified the Walker Grain Company of the fact, whereupon the grain company notified the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas that the com had reached Sherman, and requested it to take up the matter with the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company and have the corn delivered at Plano. The car of corn was finally transported from Sherman to Plano, where it arrived April 13, 1912. It was then found to be so damaged as to be almost worthless." It was promptly unloaded by the milling company and sold for its value. “The com in question,” quoting the language of the court, “was good sound corn, but on account of inherent moisture in the corn, it being the germinating season of the year, the corn would begin to heat, and where in 15 days after being unloaded in "a closed car, and if kept in a closed car longer than 15 days, it would begin to heat and mold and damage, and would be practically worthless within 10 days after the deterioration commenced.” If it had been transported over the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway as routed in the original bill of lading, the com would have' reached Plano within 10 .days after it left Kansas City; but moving as it did over the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway and its connections, it required about 15 days for it to reach Plano. The evidence did not show whether the com was in good condition when it reached Sherman or not, but indicated that it had probably begun to heat. The com was never in the possession of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. The failure to locate the corn at Sherman sooner than it was located there was due to the fact that it was expected, when it reached Texas, to move over the line of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas, and neither the milling company nor the agent at Plano of the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company knew that the routing of the car had been changed until about 30 days after its arrival at Sherman. “The wrongful and negligent act,” the trial court found, “of the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company in having and causing said shipment to be diverted without noting the diversion upon the original bill of lading was the proximate cause of the delay in delivering the car in question at Plano, Tex., and the proximate cause of said grain becoming heated and rotten.” The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas did not by a sworn plea deny the authority of its agent at Ft. Worth to issue in lieu of the original bill pf lading the bill of lading he issued to the Walker Grain Company. The failure of the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company to note on the bill of lading it issued the change in the routing of the car of corn caused the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas to-issue the bill of lading to which the Walker Grain Company attached its draft on, and which was paid by, the milling company. On facts found by him as recited, the trial court concluded: (1) That the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas should not be held to deny liability on the ground that it never had possession of the corn; (2) that the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company by reason of its negligence and wrongful act in changing the routing of the corn without noting the fact on the bill of lading it issued, “became an absolute insurer of the arrival of the corn in good condition” ; (3) that the intervener, Puterbaugh, as the assignee of the milling company, was entitled to' recover of botli the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas as prayed for in his petition.
Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, and Dins-more, McMahoh & Dinsmore, of Greenville, for appellants.
G. P. Brown, M. W. Muse, and L. C. Clifton, all of McKinney, Lee, Lomax & Smith, and Slay, Simon & Smith, all of Ft. Worth, Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, and J. E. Whitehead, of Oklahoma City, Old., for appellees.

Opinion:
WILLSON, C. J.
(after stating the facts as above). When all the facts found by the trial court are kept in mind, we think it sufficiently appears that the judgment is erroneous so far as it is against the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company. The theory upon which the -trial court held that company to be liable was that it "became an absolute insurer of the arrival of th.e com in good condition, by reason of its negligence and wrongful act in making the diversion of the shipment without noting same upon the bill of lading." It may be conceded, without deciding the question, that the court's conclusion was correct if he meant that the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company, because of its default in the particular specified, became an insurer of the arrival of the corn at Sherman .in good condition; still judgment should not have been rendered against that company, for the court expressly found that the evidence was "insufficient to show whether the corn reached Sherman, Tex., in good condition or not." But if the trial court meant that the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company by changing the routing of the corn became an insurer of its arrival in good condition at Plano,. Tex., we think the conclusion was plainly erroneous; for that company never undertook to transport the corn further than Sherman, Tex. We have found nothing in the record which supports the contention of appellee Puterbaugh that said railway company -was liable to him for injury to the cord after it reached Sherman, and after the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, in compliance with the instruction in the bill of lading, had notified the Walker Grain Company of its arrival there. After such notice was given, it can hardly be contended that the failure of the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company to note the change of routing in the bill of lading was a proximate cause of injury thereafter accruing to the corn because of delay in transporting it to Plano. For that delay, it seems from the findings, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas was responsible; for the Walker Grain Company, having, as stated above, been itself promptly notified by the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company of the arrival of the com at Sherman, shortly thereafter notified that company (the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas) that the corn was at Sherman, and requested it to take up with the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company the matter- of having it transported to Plano. Why the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company did not promptly comply with the request of the Walker Grain Company does not appear from anything we find in the retajrd. It was due to its failure to so comply therewith, it seems, that the corn remained stored in the car at Sherman so long, and its being so stored, it reasonably appears from the findings, was the cause of the injury it sustained. Such failure and the consequent delay of about one month in the transportation- of the corn from Sherman to the nearby town of Plano it seems to us was plainly a breach of the undertaking to transport the corn to said town and there deliver same to its owner within a reasonable time, evidenced by the bill of lading issued to the Walker Grain Company by the agent at Ft. Worth of said Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. Why, then, should not said railway company have been held to be liable to the owner of .the corn for the consequences to him of such breach? The reason advanced by, said railway company in its brief is that it was not its undertaking. In support of that contention it insists that its said agent acted without the scope of his authority as such when he issued the bill of lading, because it had not then acquired possession of the corn. It is not necessary to determine whether the contention would be tenable or not (said railway company never having acquired possession of the property) if the suit was one for damages for a conversion of the corn; for, plainly, it was not that kind of a suit. It was, instead, a suit for damages for delay in transporting the corn to Plano, whereby, it was claimed, it was injured. It may be conceded, without so determining, that the agent at Ft. Worth of said railway company exceeded his authority as such when he issued the bill of lading purporting to bind it to transport over its own and connecting lines from Ft. Worth to Plano property it had not then and never afterward acquired possession of; still the fact remains, it reasonably appears from the findings, that said railway company adopted, by attempting to perform, the undertaking by its said •agent on its behalf; for the corn was transported to Plano, and the cost in freight charges for carrying it there was demanded of and paid by the milling company. Now, if said railway company had a right to repudiate the contract of its said agent in its behalf, it did not have a right, affirming same and undertaking performance thereof, to thereafter claim exemption from liability to the owner of the corn for the eonsequenc-es to him of its negligence in such performance.
Perhaps in fairness it should be added here that the statement that the carriage of the corn to Plano was in performance of the undertaking evidenced by said bill of lading is not based on a specific finding by the court to that effect, but on the fact that the carriage of the corn to that town is not otherwise accounted, for in the findings the court made. So far as anything in the record shows to the contrary, it was not pretended at the trial that any one else than said railway company ever undertook to carry the corn, or have same carried, to Plano. Therefore we think a fair, if not a necessary, inference from the findings is that the corn was carried to Plano at the instance of said railway company in an attempt by it to comply with the undertaking evidenced by said bill of lading. So construing the findings, there can be no doubt, we think, that the conclusion of the trial court based thereon, to wit, that said railway company was. not entitled to be heard j to deny liability for injury to the corn, was warranted. 2 C. J. pp. 489, 490, 492, 493, et seq.; 21 R. C; L. pp. 927, 932.
The judgment will be affirmed so far as it is against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas, and so far as it is in favor of parties specified in the statement above; and it will be reversed so far as it is against the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company, and judgment will be here rendered that appellee Puterbaugh take nothing as against it.
<&^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes