Court Opinion

ID: 9829305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:11:15.606978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.740801
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees with much force insist that we were in error in sustaining the objection made to the testimony of the witness Fisher. Among other things, they insist that the *405objection to the testimony should be disregarded on the ground that the cross-interrogatories of' the witness, which developed his want of personal knowledge, was not introduced in evidence and before the court at the time of the objection. Counsel for appellants, however, as it' appears from the bill of exception, made his objection and called the court’s attention to the fact that by a cross-interrogatory of the same witness in the same deposition disclosed that he was without personal recollection of the condition of the vegetables at the time they were loaded for shipment in California. This statement of counsel was not questioned by counsel for appellees nor by the court, and the cross-interrogatory was in fact later introduced, and we think it would be quibbling to hold that, on the ground suggested, we should decline to sustain the objection and dispose of it as we did in our original opinion.
It is further insisted with great earnestness, that regardless of the testimony of Fisher there was other evidence which authorized the conclusion that the vegetables were in good condition at the time they were loaded for shipment, to wit, it is alleged that the bill of lading which was offered in evidence recited that such vegetables were in apparent good condition except as otherwise noted, and that no nótation to the contrary was made upon the bill of lading. The record, however, shows without dispute that the bill of lading was issued by the initial carrier and by the shipper attached to a draft and forwarded to a Fort Worth bank and never came into the possession of appellant carriers. Under such circumstances, it seems quite clear under the authorities that the terminal carrier is not bound by mere recitations of the character indicated. See T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.) 74 S. W. 343; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Diamond Roller Mills Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 82 S. W. 662; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Holder, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 30 S. W. 383.
In our original opinion we stated that appellees did not rely upon any act or omission amounting to negligence on the part of appellants after the receipt of the vegetables on the railway lines of which appellants are receivers, but rested their case upon the testimony of Fisher, to the effect that the vegetables were in good condition at the time they were loaded for shipment in California. This statement was made in view of the fact that appellees in their brief referred to no evidence tending to show that after the receipt of the goods by appellants there was any act or omission tending to show negligence on the part of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Under the rules, we were authorized to accept the statements ,of counsel in their briefs, and were not required to search the statement of facts in order to determine whether some additional fact existed which would require a modification of a ruling made upon a proposition presented in the briefs. Hence, this statement was made as indicated.
Appellees now, however, insist that, regardless of Fisher’s testimony and the presumption of negligence relied upon, there was evidence of negligence on the part of the appellants, their agents, and servants. In view of the earnestness with which counsel for appellees presents his motion for rehearing, the writer, and at least one other member of this court, has carefully searched the statement of facts and find that the car of vegetables in question were loaded on the car for shipment at Nadeau, Cal., and left that point on its way at 5 p. m. on the 5th day, of April, 1920, and arrived at Sweetwater, Tex., at 4 a. m. on the 11th day of April, 1920; that it was delivered to and came into possession of the Tex;as & Pacific Railway Company at 1 p. m. on the 16th day of April, 1920. That the car left Sweetwater over the Texas & Pacific Railway, Company at 6:30 p. m. on the same day on the first train, and arrived in Fort Worth and was placed upon the unloading docks about noon on the 17th day of April, 1920, which, according to testimony that we do not find contradicted, was substantially according to the schedule time of such trains running between Sweet-water ' and Fort Worth. Mr. Holloway, a car clerk at Sweetwater at the time, testified that he found the bunkers of the car at the time of its receipt three-fourths full of ice, and appellant himself testified to the effect that the car was three-fourths full of ice, or approximately so, when sent to the warehouse on Saturday afternoon, and remained there the rest of Saturday and Sunday, the 18th of April; that no ice was placed in it Sunday, and “there would be some little deterioration during Sunday and Saturday afternoon — bound to be.” Appellee further testified that in his experience “a car should have had the bunkers kept three-fourths full in there and better, if possible.”
Appellee made no request for a submission to the jury of an issue of whether the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, its agents or employees, were guilty of negligence in failing or refusing to receive the car immediately upon its arrival at Sweetwater, or in a failure to properly ice the car after its receipt, and there is no finding of the jury on either of such issues. On the contrary, the only issues relating to this subject submitted by the' court was one requiring a finding of whether the car was in a good condition at the beginning and another whether it was bad at the termination of the transportation. So that we feel ourselves entirely unable to affirm the judgment on the theory that the appellant railway company has been guilty of negligence, regardless of the state of the *406proof as to tlie condition of the vegetables at the time they were shipped at Nadeau, Cal.
So far as we indicated in our original opinion, that the objection to the court’s action in adding interest to the amount of damages as found by the jury was well taken for want of a pleading to support it, we were in error. The matter was only referred to incidentally and hurriedly and 'not made the basis of reversal, and hence the inaccuracy inadvertently arose. What we should have said and now say is that the objection to this action of the court was on the ground that there was no finding by the jury for damages' in the way of interest, or if there was such finding it was included in the amount found by them, to wit, $942.99. We think there can be no doubt but that this objection was well taken. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Addison, 96 Tex. 61, 70 S. W. 200; San Antonio v. Pfeiffer (Tex. Civ. App.) 216 S. W. 207; Davis v. Morris (Tex. Civ. App.) 257 S. W. 328. We conclude that appellees’ motion for. rehearing should be overruled.
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Eé Railway Company and Panhandle & Santa Eé Railway Company, defendants in the court below, request that our original opiri-ion and judgment of reversal be so corrected as to show that the reversal of the judgment does not apply to these companies, and we think the motion must be granted. Our failure to so indicate in the first instance was but a mere inadvertence, for the record shows, without dispute that in answer to special issues the jury expressly found these two defendants were not guilty of negligence in the handling or in the transportation of the shipment in question, and the judgment as distinctly discharged these defendants from the claim of plaintiff, and the plaintiff, appellee in this court presented no exception to the jury’s finding or the judgment in this respect, and presented in this court no cross-assignment of error which would authorize us to reverse the judgment below in favor of these particular defendants. Our original opinion and judgment will accordingly be so reformed as to show that the judgment below is reversed as to the appellant receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company alone, but in all other respects is left undisturbed.