Case Name: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. HURST & RILEY et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-09
Citations: 135 S.W. 599
Docket Number: 
Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. HURST & RILEY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. HURST & RILEY et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 9, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 2, 1911.
Further Rehearing Denied March 16, 1911.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 387 ) — Appeal Bond —Time op Filing.
The filing of the appeal bond in the time prescribed by the statute is necessary to give the appellate court jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2065; Dec. Dig. § 387. ]
2. Carriers (§ 218 ) — Shipping Contract-Notice op Claim op Damages.
The provision in a contract of shipment of cattle that as a condition to recovery for injury thereto from any cause, including delay, the shipper shall give notice of claim therefor before removing them from the place of destination, does not apply to damages from loss by decline in the market, or to the expense of feed for the cattle after their delayed arrival and till the market day.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, -see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 947; Dec. Dig. § 218. ]
S. Carriers (§ 213 ) — Delay in Transportation-Test op Liability.
The test of liability of a carrier on the question of delay in transportation of cattle is not whether the run made by it was reasonable, but whether it used reasonable care to transport in a reasonable time; and the reasonable care can be considered from all the circumstances.
[Ed. 'Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 920-922; Dec. Dig. § 213. ]
Appeal from District Court, Franklin County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
Action by Hurst & Riley and others against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
T. B. McCormick, for appellant. Smelser & Vaughan and R. T. Wilkinson, for appel-lees. .
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in' Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LEVY, J.
It appears that the appeal bond in this case was approved and filed by the district clerk on November 20, 1909. In this case court was allowed to sit two weeks by law, and must finally adjourn, as we must judicially know by the record, on October 30, 1909. The filing of the appeal bond was therefore one day too late to be within the prescribed time of the statute. The filing of tlie appeal bond within the time prescribed by the statute is necessary to' give jurisdiction to this court over the appeal. Railway Co. v. Whatley, 99 Tex. 128, 87 S. W. 819; Railway Co. v. Elliston, 128 S. W. 675.
The appeal was accordingly ordered dismissed.