Citations
- 3 Tex. Civ. App. 485
Full opinion text
PLEASANTS, Associate Justice.
This suit was instituted by appellees against appellant to recover the value of a case of clothing, shipped by appellees to J. M. Womack over defendant’s road on the 23rd day of August, 1890; appellant executing on the day last named its bill of lading. The package was consigned to Womack, care of railway agent at Belden, Texas, and should have reached its destination in from three to five days. The petition alleged, that by reason of the negligence of appellant, the goods did not reach McGregor, the most distant point of transit on its line, until about the 28th day of September; that the goods were again delayed in their transit over the Cotton Belt Bailway, and the purchaser, Womack, advised plaintiffs that on account of the delay he could not receive the goods, and he was by plaintiffs released from his purchase. That about the 10th of October the defendant acknowledged that the goods were lost, and requested plaintiffs to present their bill for payment to the defendant company, and plaintiffs accordingly, did on said day present their bill to the defendant for the sum of §419, and defendant then promised to pay the same between the 10th and 15th of November, 1890.
Defendant answered by general denial.
Trial by the judge without a jury, and judgment for plaintiffs for the price of the goods, to-wit, §419, and interest on that sum added, making the judgment, principal and interest, §448.90. Motion for new trial being overruled, defendant filed petition in error, and plaintiffs accepted service.
The plaintiffs proved by N. Reddich, who is one of the plaintiffs, that the goods were shipped as alleged to Womack, and that they were delayed in transit, and did not reach Belden till the 18th of October, 1890, and that prior to this, date Womack had been released from his purchase on .account of the great delay in the transmission of the goods; and that the defendant company, through W. W. Rhodes, whom witness found in the ■office of the auditor of the defendant, promised to pay for the goods within the time alleged in petition.
Rhodes testified, that he was the auditor’s clerk; that he never promised that the company would pay plaintiffs the value of the goods; but that he requested the plaintiffs to make out their claim, showing the value