Case Name: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. KEEL GRAIN CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-11-24
Citations: 132 S.W. 837
Docket Number: 
Parties: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. KEEL GRAIN CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 132
Pages: 837–837

Head Matter:
ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. KEEL GRAIN CO.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 24, 1910.
On Rehearing, Dec. 8, 1910.)
1. Trial (§ 191 ) — Instructions — Assumption op Pact.
In an action against a carrier for negligent delay in transporting grain, an instruction that the jury might also find for plaintiff for its damage, if any, for being deprived of the use of the wheat which it had contracted to sell, if the jury found that any of the wheat had been sold by plaintiff, was erroneous, as assuming that the carrier had notice of the special damage accruing and to accrue to plaintiff.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 420-481; Dec. Dig. § 191. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Error (§ 1140 ) — Reversal-Curing Error — Remittitur.
Where a judgment was reversed on appeal because of error in an instruction with reference to special damages; the judgment will be affirmed on plaintiff remitting such damages.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 4465; Dec. Dig. § 1140. ]
Appeal from Coolse County Court; C. R. Pearman, Judge.
Action by the Keel Grain Company against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
A. H. Culwell and Terry, > Cavin & Mills, for appellant. Davis & Thomason, for ap-pellee.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r’Indexes

Opinion:
LEVY, J.
This suit was for negligent delay in the transportation of certain wheat, which appellee claims resulted in special damages to it.
By the ninth assignment of error complaint is made of the court's charge, that it was on the weight of the evidence. The assignment must be sustained, we think, on the ground that it assumed that the appellant company had notice of the special damage accruing and to accrue to appellee. The portion of the charge that is objectionable reads: "You may also find for plaintiff in whatever amount it had been damaged, if anything, for being deprived of the use of the wheat which it had contracted to sell, if you find that any of said wheat had been sold by plaintiff."
The other assignments presented by appellant do not, as complained of, afford ground for reversal. By this we do not mean to approve the charge of the court as having presented the pertinent and proper issues of the case to the jury. We do think, however, that the county court of Cooke county cjearly has jurisdiction of this suit, and that in this respect the appellant's contention cannot be sustained.
The judgment was ordered reversed and remanded.