Court Opinion

ID: 9830310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:05:29.778103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:39.092652
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant cites the cases of Railway v. Lock (Tex. Civ. App.) 209 S. W. 181, and *63Railway v. Cox (Tex. Civ. App.) 221 S. W. 1043, six times in its motion for rehearing, but in spite of that fact neither has any applicability to the facts of this case. In the first-cited case the initial carrier refused to Be bound beyond its own line and insisted on limiting its liability to its own line; the court held there was no through shipment. No such facts appear in this case.
In the other cited case it was held that in order to recover from a terminal carrier for damages caused by preceding carriers the plaintiff must plead that the shipment was made on a contract for through carriage. In appellee’s petition herein it was alleged that the cattle were received by the initial carrier at Rio Hondo “and there accepted to be safely and securely carried and conveyed over its said road and the defendant’s connecting line of road from Rio Hondo, Cameron county, Tex., to Edinburg, Hidalgo county, Tex.” If that language does not mean a through shipment, it cannot be expressed. There was no contract confining damages to the line of the initial carrier.
This court correctly held that there was, and could be, only one connecting carrier with the initial carrier, between Rio Hondo, in Cameron county, and Edinburg, Hidalgo county. That fact is judicially known to any Texas court.
It was sufficiently alleged that there was a seventh car of cattle, and while the initial carrier may have received and transported the cattle without knowing that they were placed in the pens, we are not willing to so find, but insist on the conclusion that the cattle were placed in the pens at Ban Fernando with the knowledge and consent of the initial carrier.
There is no merit in the motion, and it is overruled.