Houston East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. Houston Packing Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Houston East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. Houston Packing Co.

176 S.W. 63, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 492

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 22, 1915

DocketNo. 447.

StatusPublished

This text of 176 S.W. 63 (Houston East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. Houston Packing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houston East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. Houston Packing Co., 176 S.W. 63, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 492 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

The Houston Packing Company brought this suit to recover of appellant damages arising out of the shipment of a car of meat from Houston, Tex., to Concord, N. H. The damage is alleged to have been due to delay in transit, negligent diversion, and insufficient re-icing. From a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the railway company appeals.

Appellant was the initial carrier, and the bill of lading which it issued, among other things, provided that the shipment was to be properly re-iced when necessary while in transit. Appellee furnished the car containing the shipment.

[1] It is assigned as error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, it being contended in the supporting propositions that appellee failed to show a proper pre-cooling of the meat prior to its loading; that the car containing the shipment was improperly constructed as to insulation; and that the evidence disclosed the car had been properly re-iced while in transportation. No good purpose can be served by detailing and discussing the evidence. It is sufficient to support a finding adverse to appellant upon each of the issues presented in support of its assignments upon this phase of the case.

[2] Those assignments complaining of the refusal of special charges are overruled, for the reason that no bill of exception was taken to their refusal as required by chapter 59, Acts 33d Legislature.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HIGGINS, J.

The Houston Packing Company brought this suit to recover of appellant damages arising out of the shipment of a car of meat from Houston, Tex., to Concord, N. H. The damage is alleged to have been due to delay in transit, negligent diversion, and insufficient re-icing. From a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the railway company appeals.

Appellant was the initial carrier, and the bill of lading which it issued, among other things, provided that the shipment was to be properly re-iced when necessary while in transit. Appellee furnished the car containing the shipment.

[1] It is assigned as error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, it being contended in the supporting propositions that appellee failed to show a proper pre-cooling of the meat prior to its loading; that the car containing the shipment was improperly constructed as to insulation; and that the evidence disclosed the car had been properly re-iced while in transportation. No good purpose can be served by detailing and discussing the evidence. It is sufficient to support a finding adverse to appellant upon each of the issues presented in support of its assignments upon this phase of the case.

[2] Those assignments complaining of the refusal of special charges are overruled, for the reason that no bill of exception was taken to their refusal as required by chapter 59, Acts 33d Legislature.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.W. 63, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-east-west-texas-ry-co-v-houston-packing-co-texapp-1915.