Case Name: GULF, T. & W. RY. CO. v. LUNN
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-12-23
Citations: 171 S.W. 1121
Docket Number: No. 2374
Parties: GULF, T. & W. RY. CO. v. LUNN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 171
Pages: 1121–1121

Head Matter:
GULF, T. & W. RY. CO. v. LUNN.
(No. 2374.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
Dec. 23, 1914.)
Costs (§ 4*) — Attorney’s Fees — Statutes.
Acts 31st Leg. c. 47, authorizing recovery of attorney’s fees under certain circumstances in actions against railroad companies for overcharges and for loss or damage to freight, etc., is constitutional.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 2, 3, 109; Dec. Dig. § 4.*]
Error to . Court of Civil Appeals of Sixth Supreme Judicial District.
Action by Earl Lunn against the Gulf, Texas & Western Railway Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (141 S. W. 538), and •defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Ben B. Cain, of Dallas, and Sporer & McClure, of Jacksboro, for plaintiff in error. E. W. Nicholson, of Wichita Falls, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
BROWN, C.
J. Lunn filed a suit in Jack county in a justice court against the plaintiff in error for $3.50, alleging compliance with the act of the Legislature of March 13, 1909, now article 2178, Revised Statutes of 1911. The railway company paid the $3.50. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff for $10 attorney's fees, and the judge of the district court of that county granted an injunction against said judgment, but subsequently dissolved the injunction and dismissed the case. The railroad company appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the district court, and this court granted a writ of error on the 2d day of February, 1912. From the entry made on our docket, the writer concludes that the writ was granted upon the assumption that the statute authorizing the recovery of attorney's fees was unconstitutional.
On November 12, 1912, this court filed an opinion in Railway Co. v. Mahaffey, 105 Tex. 394, 150 S. W. 881, in which the same statute was sustained, as being constitutional. That opinion was subsequently followed by the Supreme Court of the United States in M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 647, 34 Sup. Ct. 678, 58 L. Ed. 1135.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.