Citations
- 99 Tex. 654
Full opinion text
GAINES, Chief Justice.
This suit was brought in the District Court of Parker County, Texas, by the plaintiffs in error against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, a corporation chartered by virtue of an Act of the Congress of the United States, and J. M. Tucker, its agent, a resident of the State of Texas, to recover" damages alleged to have resulted from the shipment of cattle from Strawn, Texas, a station on the line of the defendant company, destined to Tulsa, Indian Territory, a station on the line of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. It was alleged in the petition that the cattle were brought to Strawn and were delivered to Tucker, as the agent of the defendant company, to be shipped by the shortest and most expeditious route to the point named; that after the cattle had been about loaded on the cars, Tucker then presented a bill of lading for the transportation of the cattle to Paris, Texas, and thence over the lines of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company to Monette, Missouri, and thence to Tulsa. It was alleged that the plaintiffs declined to sign the bill of lading and demanded that the cattle should be carried over the Texas & Pacific Railroad to Fort Worth, or to Sherman and thence over the Red River, Texas & Southern Railroad to its connection with the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad, and thence by that railroad to the point of destination, and that this was the shortest and most expeditious route; but that Tucker, the agent, positively refused to do this, and that under certain circumstances alleged they were compelled to sign as demanded. The circumstances-alleged were sufficient in our opinion to show, that in signing the bill of lading the plaintiffs acted under duress. It was further averred, in substance, that by reason of the longer haul, the cattle were damaged and for this damage the suit was brought.
In due time» defendant, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, filed a petition for the removal of the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States. In this petition its codefendants joined. The defendant company in the first place claimed the right of removal by virture of its incorporation under an Act of the Congress of the United States and, according t