Case Name: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. WINN BROS.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-06-01
Citations: 178 S.W. 697
Docket Number: No. 1486
Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. WINN BROS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 178
Pages: 697–699

Head Matter:
GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. WINN BROS.
(No. 1486.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
June 1, 1915.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 10, 1915.)
1.Carriers <&wkey;211 — Live Stock Shipment-Contract xor Watering.
Bev. St.-1911, art. 714, requiring the carrier to feed and water a live stock shipment, unless otherwise provided by contract, authorizes a contract shifting the duty to the shipper’s representative accompanying the shipment.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers. Cent. Dig. §§ 926-928; Dec. Dig. &wkey;211.]
On Motion for Behearing.
2. Carriers &wkey;208 — Live Stock Shipment-Caretakers — Passes.
Pen. Code 1911, art. 1533, exempting from the provisions of the anti-pass law (Acts 30th Leg. c. 42), in case of a live stock shipment, the necessary caretakers while en route and return, contemplates that they accompany the shipment, and not go on another train.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 92L-928; Dec. Dig. <5&wkey;20-8J
3. Carriers <&wkey;218 — Contract ox Carriage —Exemption from Liability.
Provision of a contract for live stock shipment, to be accompanied by the shipper’s representative, relieving the carrier from all liability for injury, is invalid as relieving it from the consequences of its own negligence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 674-696, 927, 928, 933-949; Dec. Dig. <®=>218.]
4. Trial <&wkey;85 — Evidence Admissible in Part — Bejection.
Where part of the contract of carriage is invalid as against public policy, and tends to prove a pleaded defense, though another part is valid and tends to prove another defense, the court is justified in rejecting it offered as a whole. The unobjectionable part should be offered separately.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 222-225; Dec. Dig. &wkey;85.]
Appeal from Collin County Court; H. L. Davis, Judge.
Action by Winn Bros, against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Bailway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Terry, Covin & Mills, of Galveston, D. C. Clifton, of McKinney, and John G. Gregg, of Galveston, for appellant. John Doyle, of McKinney, for appellees.

Opinion:
HODGES, J.
This appeal is from a judgment for the sum of $325 in favor'of the appellees against the appellant as damages for injuries to a shipment of live stock consisting of a car load of mules. The negligence alleged was delay, rough handling, and the failure to feed and water while in transit. The evidence offered by tbe appellees showed that the car left Wiley, Tex., at about 12 o'clock on the night of February 7, 1914, and arrived at Houston, Tex., its destination, in the afternoon of the 11th of February following; that the animals were in such bad condition that they were not marketable; and that, as a result, nearly all of them were shipped back to Wiley. Proof was offered tending to show that the animals were damaged to the extent of $25 per head.
The first assigned error is the refusal of the court to permit the appellant to introduce in the evidence provisions of the bill of lad ing stipulating that the shipper would accompany the car and feed and water the stock and release the carrier from that duty. The second assignment complains of the refusal to permit the introduction of the entire hill of lading. This proffered testimony was objected to upon the ground that it was immaterial, irrelevant, and tended to limit the liability of the railway company for its negligence. The testimony offered by the appellant showed that the stock were watered and fed twice after leaving Wiley and before reaching Houston. One of the witnesses for the appellees testified that stock kept on cars 96 hours without being watered and fed more than twice during that time would be 'injured to the extent of $25 per head. The court submitted the failure to water and feed as one of the grounds of recovery.
In this state of the record it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that a stipulation whereby the shipper binds himself to accompany the stock and to water and feed them on route was unimportant and immaterial. In this instance the shippers were furnished with free transportation, presumably for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to have some one accompany the shipment and comply with the stipulations embraced in the contract. Article 714 of the Revised Statutes provides that common carriers shall feed and water live stock conveyed by them, unless otherwise provided by special contract. This seems to contemplate that contracts may be made whereby the carrier is relieved of that duty and responsibility. Contracts of this character have been upheld in this state as valid and binding obligations. Dickerson et al. v. S. U. & G. Ry. Co., 170 S. W. 1045; Ft. W. & D. C. R. R. Co. v. Daggett, 87 Tex. 322, 28 S. W. 525; T. & P. R. R. Co. v. Arnold, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 74, 40 S. W. 829; T. & P. R. R. Co. v. Peters, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 6, 71 S. W. 71. Article 1533 of the Penal Code exempts from the provisions of the anti-pass law the necessary caretakers to accompany shipments of live stock. Evidently this provision is based upon the assumption that the person to whom the transportation is given will accompany the shipment and perform the duties usually expected of a caretaker in looking after the welfare of the stock while en route. In this case the evidence shows that one of the appellees to whom the transportation was delivered, instead of accompanying the shipment, waited until the next day and went through to Houston on a passenger train. I-Ie did not see the stock from the time they left Wiley until their arrival at their destination. Clearly the law did not contemplate that railway companies should give transportation to b.e used in that way. We think the court erred in refusing to admit the proffered testimony as against the objections urged. It may be that portions of the bill of lading, or even portions of that part which was first offered, were inadmissible. But the objection urged and sustained was as to the whole. The rule is that when testimony is offered, a part of which is admissible and a part is not, a general objection to all will not be sustained. It is the duty of the objector in such instance to confirm his objection to those portions of the testimony which are inadmissible. This proposition is too well settled to call for a reference to authority.
The remaining assignment of error is without-merit; but, for the errors discussed, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes