Court Opinion

ID: 9832536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:59:03.070451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.766393
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We probably erred in stating in our original opinion that McMahan & Eerrell received cotton tickets from appellant’s agent for the cotton placed upon its platform for shipment. There is no direct testimony showing who issued the cottón tickets referred to, or from whom McMahan & Eerrell got them, and these tickets, and not the bill of lading issued by appellant’s agent, showed there were two bales in the lot not intended to be shipped. McMahan’s statement is:
“At that time there was loaded on the platform 137 bales of cotton, and wo got our bill of lading and went to the bank to settle, and in cheeking the cotton tickets there was 137, which should have been 135, and then we called him (Kinslow) and had him check the cotton, and at this time they had loaded part of it in the car. I directed him' to check the cotton to get the two bales that didn’t belong in the list and take them out of the shipment. That was before he was injured. It was just a few minutes before the occurrence of his injuries that I give him these directions.”
This, however, does not require any change in the disposition made of the appeal. We think the case, upon the practically undisputed facts, has been correctly decided. The appellee had been cotton weigher at Sadler for a number of years, and, as further supporting our conclusion that he was an invitee, we quote from the testimony of appellant’s agent, O. W. Atkins, as follows:
“Yes, so far as I know, the cotton weigher had free access to the platform and cars. Frequently he went in and out of the cars chocking cotton on the platform. He was on the platform at the time he was checking cotton. As to whether it was with my knowledge and permission, I never give him permission to. I didn’t object to it; no, sir. I didn’t know he was there on this date. I have known of him being on the platform. I never saw him in the cars; he could have gone in if he wanted to.”
The case is distinguishable in its facts from Louthian v. Ft. W. & D. C. Ry. Co., 50 Tex. Civ. App. 613, 111 S. W. 666, and should not be controlled thereby. The motion for rehearing is overruled.