C. W. Adams & Co. v. Haught
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Dallas. Action by the appellees against appellants on a contract of affreightment. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for $200. The facts were as follows : The counsel for the parties failing to agree to a statement of facts, the following is given by the presiding Judge, as the facts proved on the trial: That defendants shipped by plaintiffs a quantity of cotton and hides, as specified in the following bills of lading, and in the condition and for the price…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas. Action by the appellees against appellants on a contract of affreightment. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for $200. The facts were as follows : The counsel for the parties failing to agree to a statement of facts, the following is given by the presiding Judge, as the facts proved on the trial: That defendants shipped by plaintiffs a quantity of cotton and hides, as specified in the following bills of lading, and in the condition and for the price therein specified. Shipped in good order and well conditioned, by C. W. Adams & Co., on board the boat called the…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The plaintiffs brought suit for the full amount of freight to which they would have been entitled upon the delivery of the cargo at the port of destination. The verdict rendered was for a less sum. The evidence embodied in the statement of facts affords no criterion by which to apportion the freight pro rata itineris; and it is not perceived upon what *249evidence the verdict was rendered for the sum found for the plaintiffs. But if the verdict in this respect should appear to be unsupported by evidence, it would still be material, in reference to the ultimate decision of the case, as it is to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Caze v. Baltimore InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Armroyd v. Union InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1811
- Callender v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Hurtin v. Union Ins. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1806
3Cited by4 opinions
- Braithwaite v. AikinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Edwards v. The Joseph Farwell & CargoDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1887
- Murray v. Aetna Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1864
- Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884