Court Opinion

ID: 9827035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:05:12.019067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:21.646053
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, in its motion for rehearing, complains of the findings of fact, as stated by this court in the original opinion, as follows:
“In the presentation of the facts by the court, the following is said:
“J. B. Rodgers, tie inspector, made reports of his inspection to the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railroad Company, to the Kirby Lumber Company, and to the Poster Lumber Company, and upon these reports of inspection by Rodgers, the Kirby Lumber Company and Poster Lumber Company each got pay for the ties.
“In this statement, so far as the Poster Lumber Company is concerned, I think it was an error, in this, that the evidence shows that the inspector did not make any report to Foster Lumber Company, but in his report to Kirby Lumber Company, it was stated what ties came from the Poster Lumber Company tram, and what came from other places, but neither the report of inspection or a copy thereof was sent to Poster Lumber Company. This you will find in the testimony of T. E. Heath on pages 11-12, statement of facts.”
Following this statement, appellant’s counsel says this ought to have a material effect, for, instead of showing there was a recognized relation between Poster Lumber Company and the railroad company, the exact opposite appears.
By reference to pages 11 -and 12 of the statement of facts, we find the following testimony by Mr. Heath:
“D. J. Plaven represented the Kirby Lumber Company at Silsbee in arranging to have these ties inspected. As to whether or not the Kirby Lumber Company was buying the ties from the Poster Lumber Company to fill its contract with the railroad — we give the Foster Lumber Company a certificate for them. I don’t know whether I signed the certificate upon this occasion, or Mr. Rodgers. I do not think I have got the report here. I have no copy of that report, but I presume Mr. Rodgers signed the report; if he did not, I did.
“Whenever I made an inspection over there and finished the inspection I gave the Poster Lumber Company a certificate of so many ties taken up on that tram, to apply on the Kirby Dumber Company contract. I do not know how many ties we took up on -the Poster Lumber Company tram on the trip when Mr. Rodgers was injured. The report shows we took up 1579 ties on said trip.
“As to whether or not the Poster Lumber Company knew that these ties had to be inspected before they could get their money for them — it was customary to have them inspected, with the Poster Lumber Company and the Kirby Lumber Company and the Santa Fé. They all knew about that custom and acted upon it.”
Appellant complains again at the following language used in tbe statement of the case in the original opinion:
“The Poster Lumber Company could have taken the tie inspector out on the tramroad with its locomotive, but did not do so, and the gasoline motor car was a better and more economical way of getting out to the ties to inspect them, and was much lighter on the tram than the locomotive.”
On pages 60 and 61 of the statement of facts, Mr. Womack, the Poster Lumber Company’s man, testified as follows:
“I suppose the most convenient way of getting from place to place on that track was to take the locomotive. Possibly the quickest and most convenient way would be either by motor car or by locomotive. * * * I suppose it is true that with four or five men going along to inspect ties, the most economical and quickest way would be by gasoline-propelled vehicle. It is cheaper to run than a locomotive.”
*772On pages 18 and 19 of the statement of facts, Mr. Heath, testifying, said:
“We would have ridden an engine out to carry the inspector. The Foster Lumber Company could not have sold those ties to the Kirby Lumber Company and the Kirby Lumber Company sold them to the Santa Eé without having them inspected. The motor car was the customary method of transporting the inspector to the place where the ties were to be found. That was known to each of these companies, and acquiesced in by them and participated in by them.”
On page 27 of the statement of facts, Mr. Fla ven testified:
“It is true that when the Kirby Lumber Company’s motor car would go out for these ties to be inspected, they would take the Santa PS inspector on that motor car, and also the inspector of the person they were buying from, purely as a matter of convenience. They would have to do that or furnish transportation themselves. It was more convenient to do it that way than any other way. In some of the territory the situation was that the Kirby Lumber Company had a motor car and a man to run the car, and it was convenient for it to take its own men and also the Santa Pé man along with them. Some of the subcontractors had their own cars.”
The testimony copied above, we think, warrants the statement complained of by appellant, but out of deference to appellant’s counsel, we change that statement and make it read as follows:
“The inspector could have gone out on the tramroad in a locomotive, but did not do so, and the gasoline motor car was a better and more economical way of getting out to the ties to inspect them. It was much lighter on the track than the locomotive.”
Appellant complains again of this statement by this court in the original opinion:
“The Gulf, Colorado & Santa Pé Railroad Company’s agent, after inspecting the ties, made triplicate reports, one to the appellant, one to the Kirby Lumber Company, and one to his own company, and upon these reports appellant received its money.”
Appellant’s counsel says:
“This, I think, the court will find to be an error, and one which would change the entire relation of the parties. I am making these statements without having the statement of facts before me, but feel confident that they are right, and the court will so find them on more careful' examination.”
On page 35 of the statement of facts, Rodgers, testifying in his own behalf, said:
“It was my understanding that the Santa Pé was buying the ties from the Kirby Lumber Company, and that the Kirby Lumber Company was getting them from the Poster Lumber Company.”
On page 36 he testified:
“I made out my report for hewn ties along the line of the G., C. & S. P. that I inspected as follows: We would tram them at the end of some subcontractor’s division, and we would finish up the ties, and would set them down, and make out a certificate, and the Kirby Lumber Company’s checker would sign it, and I also signed it, and the original was given to him (the subcontractor’s agent) and the duplicate was sent to the Silsbee office, and when we finished our inspection and came in, we checked our books against the certificates and made out a general inspection sheet. When I was inspecting ties along the line of the G., 0. & S.' P. I always sign my name as ‘Tie Inspector G., C. & S. F.’ I did not always put the ‘G., C. & S. P.’ on the certificate to the subcontractor, but when I signed the general certificate, I always signed it ‘G., C. & S. P.’ on it. The reports now shown me are carbon copies of some reports I made, and one is shown me that Mr. Heath made.”
Mr. Womack, agent of the Poster Lumber Company, on page 57 of the statement of facts, testified:
“There might have been some reports signed by some ISanta Fé inspector that was turned over to us from the Kirby Lumber Company; I don’t know. I never saw one of those reports that were turned in.”
Mr. E. C. Smith, manager of the Postoria mill for the Poster Lumber Company, on page 71 of the statement of facts, testified:
“In February, 1913, the Poster Lumber Company had ties on the right of way of the tram-road, and they were inspected' somewhere about the 15th or 18th of February. I do not know whether you would term a delivery of these ties under our contract with the Kirby Lumber Company when they were inspected, or when they were loaded up. I suppose you would term it a delivery on inspection, because we would get our report of them then. We got a report of the ties each month as they were inspected. We got that report from Mr. Hamblen, and we would get a copy from the inspector.”
We think these facts quoted above, both from plaintiff’s and from defendant’s witnesses, fully warrant our statement of the case complained of by appellant’s counsel.
We have carefully considered appellant’s motion for a rehearing in this case. There is nothing new presented in it, nor any new authorities cited, and we see no reason for changing our view, as expressed in the original opinion.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.