Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 22
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
22 INT. & G. IN. R'Y Co. V. UNDERWOOD. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
18, 1882, Austin, Texas, and cases cited. See White & Willson, Tex.
Ct. of App., p. 730; Texas Central R. R. Co. v. Morris, White &
Willson, Tex. Ct. App., sec. 374; Goggan v. Kansas Pacific R. R. Co.,
12 Kans., 416; Cornell v. Milwaukee Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 18 Wis.,
387; Betts et al. v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 21 Wis., 87.
No briefs on file for appellee.
WEST, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.- A large number of cases can no doubt
be found to the effect that a common carrier may lawfully, by stipulation
in writing, require the party seeking to recover for injuries
sustained to give him notice in writing as to the nature of such
damage, at the time of its occurrence.
In a carefully prepared opinion, Presiding Judge Walker of the
commission of appeals reviews to some extent the cases bearing
on this question. The authorities referred to, and to some extent
discussed by him in that case, seem to sustain the views therein
expressed. As to the correctness of his conclusions, it is not necessary
in this case to determine, and on that point we express no opinion.
The case referred to (Missouri Pac. R'y Co. v. Harris) is to be
found in White & Willson's Civil Cases of the Court of Appeals,
p. 730, sec. 1257. See, also, on the same subject, Redfield on " Carriers
and other Bailments," where this question is discussed at some
length, and some of the more important cases examined. Chapters
12 and 13.
In the case now under consideration, while the written contract
offered in evidence required notice of the damage to be given in
writing there was considerable proof adduced going to show that
the provision in the contract to this effect was in this case waived
by the parties to it.
There is testimony which shows that the agent of appellant was,
at the time of the occurrence, at once notified of the extent of the
damage sustained, and that he then, after looking into the matter,
agreed with appellee to pay him a fixed sum in satisfaction of his
The evidence introduced on this point, as it appears from the
statement of facts, which by order of the court was filed after the
court adjourned, was objected to. What the ground of objection
to it was, does not appear in the record. The objection appears
to be general in its character, and is inserted in the statement of
facts; and even if it had been special, there being no bill of exceptions
filed during term time to its admission, it could not now be
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/44/: accessed April 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .