Court Opinion

ID: 9830411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:11:30.437225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:21.710683
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] In our former opinion filed herein on April 26th, after stating the nature and result of the suit, we say: “Without setting out or discussing the testimony in detail, it is sufficient to say that the evidence raised the issue of negligence on the part of appellant in failing to promptly deliver the trunk at the Grand Central Depot in Houston for transportation over the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company to Liberty; and because of such negligence appellee was deprived of the use of her wearing apparel contained therein from the 24th to the 30th of December, 1909.” Upon re-examination of the record, we are of opinion that we erred in this conclusion.
The evidence shows that the appellant railway company, at the time the trunk was carried for Miss Chambers, had its own depot in the city of Houston, at which it delivered all baggage carried for passengers transported by it to said city, unless such passenger had a ticket calling for transportation' beyond said city over a connecting line, in which case the baggage checked on such ticket was delivered at the Grand Central Depot in said city, where appellant and its connecting carriers had a common depot and a baggage-master, who was the common agent of all of the roads using said depot.
The appellee Miss Chambers did not have a through ticket from Newkirk to Liberty, but her ticket was only to Houston; and she did not inform the agent at Newkirk that she did not intend to stop in Houston, and wanted her trunk checked to the Grand Central Depot, so that it could be there delivered to the connecting carrier for transportation to Liberty. When she reached Houston, she got off the train at the Grand Central Depot, purchased her ticket to Liberty, and went to have her trunk rechecked to that place, and found that it had not been delivered at that depot. She informed the baggagemaster there, the common agent of appellant and the other roads using said depot, that the trunk had been shipped from Newkirk, and that she desired it forwarded to Liberty as soon as it reached Houston. He promised her that this would be done, took the check given her for the trunk at Newkirk, and gave her another check for said trunk to be transported to Liberty. At that time the trunk had been delivered at the Santa Fé Depot in Houston, but neither the baggagemaster nor the said appellee were aware of that fact; both supposing that it had not then reached Houston. We think upon these facts it must be held that the contract for the carriage of the trunk was fully performed when the appellant delivered it at its depot in the city of Houston.
The promise of the baggagemaster at the Grand Central Depot that the trunk would be promptly forwarded to Liberty when it reached Houston was not made with knowledge of the fact that it had already been delivered at the Santa Fé Depot, and cannot be considered as an agreement that it would be sent back from that depot to the Grand Central Depot, in order that it might be from there forwarded to Liberty. We think the promise was only that the trunk would be promptly forwarded when it reached the Grand Central Depot.
[5] If, however, it should be construed as an agreement to have the trunk returned from the Santa Fé Depot to the Grand Central Depot, the baggagemaster had no authority to make such agreement He was the agent of appellant only in the handling of baggage which came to the Grand Central Depot, and had no authority to make any contract for the appellant in regard to the carriage of baggage which had been properly delivered to and was in the custody of its agent at its own depot in said city. Such being the undisputed evidence, we think appellee has no cause of action against appellant.
It follows that the motion for rehearing filed by the appellant should be granted, our former judgment set aside, and judgment here rendered that appellee take nothing against the appellant by reason of this suit.
As said in the main opinion, we think the trial court properly instructed a verdict in favor of the appellee Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, and the judgment in favor of that company is affirmed.