Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Reeves

39 S.W. 564, 90 Tex. 499, 1897 Tex. LEXIS 330
Texas Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1897·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

GAINES, Chief Justice.

The application for the writ of error m this case is refused. In refusing it, however, we have not found it necessary to determine whether or not our statute, which prohibits stipulations in contracts limiting the time in which actions may be brought for their breach, is without effect when applied to contracts of carriers for interstate shipments. The stipulation in the contract in this case does not appear clearly to be a reasonable one, and under the authority of Railway v. Harris, 67 Texas, 166, we think that, in order for the defendant to have availed itself of the defense, it should in its answer have alleged the facts which would have shown it to be reasonable. (See also Railway v. Davis, 88 Texas, 593.) This was not done.

Writ of error refused.

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

Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Reeves, 39 S.W. 564, 90 Tex. 499, 1897 Tex. LEXIS 330 (Tex. 1897).

39 S.W. 564 (Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Reeves) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hanlon v. Great Northern Railway Co.
268 P. 547 (Montana Supreme Court, 1928)
Jardine, Matheson & Co. v. United States
295 F. 696 (W.D. Washington, 1924)
Thurber Brick Co. v. Matthews
180 S.W. 1189 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Mounts
1914 OK 629 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)