St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Shields Grain & Coal Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Shields Grain & Coal Co.

220 S.W. 183, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 276

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 12, 1920

DocketNo. 2230.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 220 S.W. 183 (St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Shields Grain & Coal 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

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Shields Grain & Coal Co., 220 S.W. 183, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 276 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Notwithstanding the maize was shipped from one to another point in Texas, the shipment was subject to the provisions of the federal interstate commerce laws, because by the terms of the bill of lading covering its carriage it was to and did pass through another state, to wit, Oklahoma. Railway Co. v. Asher, 171 S. W. 1114.

[2, 3] The parties agreed that according to the rate fixed by said laws the amount paid to appellant as freight on the shipment was $111.60 less than it should have been. As appellant was bound to collect and the consignee was bound to pay freight according to the rate so fixed (Railway Co. v. Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 40 Sup. Ct. 27, 63 L. Ed. 1151), the former was entitled to recover the $111.60 it sued for, unless it was true, as the trial court concluded it was, “that,” quoting, “according to the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the federal act to regulate commerce,” the suit must have been commenced within two years from the time *184 when appellant’s cause of action accrued. We have not been referred to and have not found a rule of said commission or a federal statute which required such a suit to be commenced within the time specified by the trial court. In the absence of such a rule or ■statute, the question as to whether appellant’s cause of action was barred or not should have been by the trial court, and must be by us, determined with reference to the statute of limitations of this state. Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 13 Sup. Ct. 466, 37 L. Ed. 316. By the terms of that statute an action for debt, as appellant’s was, “where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing,’’ must be commenced “within two years after the cause of action shall have accrued” (Yernon’s Stat. art. 56S7), and such an action, “where the indebtedness is evidenced by or founded upon any contract in writing,” must be commenced “within four years after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Vernon’s Stat. art. 5688. As appellant’s suit was not commenced within two years from the time when it might have been, but was commenced within four years from that time, it follows that the action was barred, unless it was for indebtedness “evidenced by or founded upon” a contract in writing. That a bill of lading executed by a carrier and the consignor, as the one in question here was, is a- “contract in writing” within the meaning of .the four-year statute of limitations of this state has been definitely settled. Elder v. Dempster & Co. Ry. Co., 105 Tex. 628, 154 S. W. 975. It would seem, therefore, that the four-year statute referred to above was applicable, unless it was true, as the trial court further concluded it was—

‘that the stipulations Jn the bill of lading touching the rate cannot be the subject of contract relations between shipper and carrier, and therefore a failure on the part of the carrier to collect or the shipper to pay the stipulated rate is a breach of legal duty, and not of contractual obligation.”

The contrary of the trial court’s conclusion seems to have been reached by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in New v. Denison Clay Co. (C. C. A.) 260 Fed. 70, reported after the instant case was tried in the court below. In that case the bills of lading, like the one in this case, did not state either the rate or the amount of the freight, but contained an agreement to pay same. The federal court construed the agreement to be one to pay the lawful freight, saying:

“These bills of lading contained valid written contracts of the defendant to pay the lawful freight for the transportation involved in this action”

—and held that the suit was not one on a contract not in writing or on a liability created by statute within the meaning of the Kansas statute of limitations, but was one on an “agreement, contract or promise in writing” within the meaning of that statute. It is plain, we think, that if the ruling in that case should be applied in this one the judgment here complained of is wrong. As we think that ruling should be applied here, the judgment will be reversed; and, it appearing in the record that the parties agreed that the grain and commission company should hold the grain and coal company “harmless from all liability and assume and discharge its liability herein if any exists,” judgment will be here rendered that appellant have and recover of appellee the Jacksonville Grain & Commission Company $111.60 and interest thereon at the rate of 6 cent, per annum from February 1, 1915, together with costs in the court below, as well as the costs of this appeal.

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

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Notwithstanding the maize was shipped from one to another point in Texas, the shipment was subject to the provisions of the federal interstate commerce laws, because by the terms of the bill of lading covering its carriage it was to and did pass through another state, to wit, Oklahoma. Railway Co. v. Asher, 171 S. W. 1114.

[2, 3] The parties agreed that according to the rate fixed by said laws the amount paid to appellant as freight on the shipment was $111.60 less than it should have been. As appellant was bound to collect and the consignee was bound to pay freight according to the rate so fixed (Railway Co. v. Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 40 Sup. Ct. 27, 63 L. Ed. 1151), the former was entitled to recover the $111.60 it sued for, unless it was true, as the trial court concluded it was, “that,” quoting, “according to the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the federal act to regulate commerce,” the suit must have been commenced within two years from the time *184 when appellant’s cause of action accrued. We have not been referred to and have not found a rule of said commission or a federal statute which required such a suit to be commenced within the time specified by the trial court. In the absence of such a rule or ■statute, the question as to whether appellant’s cause of action was barred or not should have been by the trial court, and must be by us, determined with reference to the statute of limitations of this state. Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 13 Sup. Ct. 466, 37 L. Ed. 316. By the terms of that statute an action for debt, as appellant’s was, “where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing,’’ must be commenced “within two years after the cause of action shall have accrued” (Yernon’s Stat. art. 56S7), and such an action, “where the indebtedness is evidenced by or founded upon any contract in writing,” must be commenced “within four years after the cause of action shall have accrued.” Vernon’s Stat. art. 5688. As appellant’s suit was not commenced within two years from the time when it might have been, but was commenced within four years from that time, it follows that the action was barred, unless it was for indebtedness “evidenced by or founded upon” a contract in writing. That a bill of lading executed by a carrier and the consignor, as the one in question here was, is a- “contract in writing” within the meaning of .the four-year statute of limitations of this state has been definitely settled. Elder v. Dempster & Co. Ry. Co., 105 Tex. 628, 154 S. W. 975. It would seem, therefore, that the four-year statute referred to above was applicable, unless it was true, as the trial court further concluded it was—

‘that the stipulations Jn the bill of lading touching the rate cannot be the subject of contract relations between shipper and carrier, and therefore a failure on the part of the carrier to collect or the shipper to pay the stipulated rate is a breach of legal duty, and not of contractual obligation.”

The contrary of the trial court’s conclusion seems to have been reached by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in New v. Denison Clay Co. (C. C. A.) 260 Fed. 70, reported after the instant case was tried in the court below. In that case the bills of lading, like the one in this case, did not state either the rate or the amount of the freight, but contained an agreement to pay same. The federal court construed the agreement to be one to pay the lawful freight, saying:

“These bills of lading contained valid written contracts of the defendant to pay the lawful freight for the transportation involved in this action”

—and held that the suit was not one on a contract not in writing or on a liability created by statute within the meaning of the Kansas statute of limitations, but was one on an “agreement, contract or promise in writing” within the meaning of that statute. It is plain, we think, that if the ruling in that case should be applied in this one the judgment here complained of is wrong. As we think that ruling should be applied here, the judgment will be reversed; and, it appearing in the record that the parties agreed that the grain and commission company should hold the grain and coal company “harmless from all liability and assume and discharge its liability herein if any exists,” judgment will be here rendered that appellant have and recover of appellee the Jacksonville Grain & Commission Company $111.60 and interest thereon at the rate of 6 cent, per annum from February 1, 1915, together with costs in the court below, as well as the costs of this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.W. 183, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-southwestern-ry-co-of-texas-v-shields-grain-coal-co-texapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack