St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Waskom Coal Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Waskom Coal Co.

220 S.W. 280, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 303, 1920 WL 23

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 13, 1920·No. No. 8352.·Published

Opinion

RAINEY, C. J.

The Waskom Coal Company sued the appellant for the conversion of one car of coal shipped by appellee from Henryetta, Okl., consigned to its own order at Clinton, Tex., with order in the bill of lading to notify E. A. Huguley. To said bill of lading was originally attached a draft by appellee on said I-Iuguley for the price of the coal. The car reached its destination and remained there until $140 in demurrage had accrued. The draft was not presented to Huguley, and the ear of coal was delivered to him by the railroad company, and there was no written order presented for its delivery by Huguley from appellee.

The testimony was conflicting, in substance, as follows:

“It is stated that bill of lading was delivered to appellant’s commercial agent at Dallas with request to telephone its agent at Clinton, Tex., to deliver the car and stop the demurrage. On the other hand, appellee’s agent testified, and the court found, that the bill of lading was delivered to appellant’s agent with express written instructions, which were introduced in evidence in the form of letters under date October 5, 1907.”

A trial resulted in judgment in favor-, of plaintiff for the car of coal, and interest, $218.82, and $20 attorney’s fees, and the railway company appeals.

We hold in accordance with the finding of the jury, which is supported by the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

RAINEY, C. J.

The Waskom Coal Company sued the appellant for the conversion of one car of coal shipped by appellee from Henryetta, Okl., consigned to its own order at Clinton, Tex., with order in the bill of lading to notify E. A. Huguley. To said bill of lading was originally attached a draft by appellee on said I-Iuguley for the price of the coal. The car reached its destination and remained there until $140 in demurrage had accrued. The draft was not presented to Huguley, and the ear of coal was delivered to him by the railroad company, and there was no written order presented for its delivery by Huguley from appellee.

The testimony was conflicting, in substance, as follows:

“It is stated that bill of lading was delivered to appellant’s commercial agent at Dallas with request to telephone its agent at Clinton, Tex., to deliver the car and stop the demurrage. On the other hand, appellee’s agent testified, and the court found, that the bill of lading was delivered to appellant’s agent with express written instructions, which were introduced in evidence in the form of letters under date October 5, 1907.”

A trial resulted in judgment in favor-, of plaintiff for the car of coal, and interest, $218.82, and $20 attorney’s fees, and the railway company appeals.

We hold in accordance with the finding of the jury, which is supported by the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Waskom Coal Co., 220 S.W. 280, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 303, 1920 WL 23 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

220 S.W. 280 (St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Waskom Coal Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.