Court Opinion

ID: 9833613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:52:55.961063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.018547
License: Public Domain

KEY, C. J.
A statement of the nature of this suit will be found in the opinion of this court rendered upon the former appeal. Davies v. T. C. R. R. Co., 133 S. W. 295. When the case went back to the court below, it was tried again, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff Davies against the Texas Central Railroad Company, and in favor of the International & Great Northern Railroad Company, and the former company has appealed.
It was held on the former appeal that the plaintiff’s petition was sufficient to entitle him to recover upon proof of the material averments therein, and did not disclose a case barred by limitation, and, adhering to that decision, we overrule the assignments which complain of the action of the trial court in not sustaining exceptions to the petition.
In its answer appellant, not only denied its liability to the plaintiff, but it asserted a cross-action against its codefendant, the International & Great Northern Railroad Company, upon averments that the contract of shipment contained a stipulation limiting its liability to loss or injury while the property was in its custody, and that it delivered it to the other defendant, and, if it was not delivered to the plaintiff, the International & Great Northern Railroad Company was at fault for such nondelivery, and therefore, if the plaintiff recovered against the Texas Central Railroad Company, that defendant was entitled to recover ■ over against its code-fendant. At the trial from which this appeal is prosecuted, the court instructed the jury that the testimony failed to show that the 12 bales of cotton in controversy were ever delivered by the Texas Central Railroad Company to the International & Great Northern Railroad Company, and therefore the jury should return a verdict in favor of the latter company, which instruction the jury obeyed, and that charge is made the subject of appellant’s second assignment of error. We sustain that assignment and reverse the judgment. The plaintiff’s contention is that his agent delivered to the Texas Central Railroad Company at Hico 235 bales of cotton, marked “H. E. M.,” to be transported, via Waco, to Galveston, and that the International & Great Northern Railroad Company, the connecting carrier, delivered to the plaintiff’s agent at Galveston only 223 bales of the cotton referred to. There was testimony tending to show that the International & Great Northern Railroad Company received from appellant 10 bales of cotton, stated in the waybill as marked “T. I. S.,” which, in fact, were marked “H. E. M.,” and if the 10 bales referred to were in fact marked “H. E. M.,” and were delivered by appellant to its codefendant, it would seem that appellant is not liable for more than 2 of the 12 that were not delivered at Galveston.
For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.