Williams v. O'Daniels
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland. The head-note is believed to indicate all the material facts. There was no pretense that O’Daniels was expressly authorized to confide the cotton to any one. 'Two witnesses, however, testified that he was instructed “to do the best he could with the cotton, just as if it was his own.” The jury found for the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtOgden, J.
We are of the opinion that the evidence in this cause fails to establish the fact that the defendant below is chargeable as a common carrier. (Angel on Carriers, §§ 671 and 46 ; Parsons on Cont., 163 and 173; Story on Bailments, 489.) The testimony of appellant’s witnesses shows most clearly that the undertaking of the appellee was quite different from the undertaking of a common carrier, and counsel for appellant virtually admit that he is not liable as such. Nor did the appellee undertake to haul the cotton for which he is sued, in the capacity of a private carrier alone. (Angel on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Haynie v. BaylorTexas Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ranger County Mutual Insurance Co. v. GuinTexas Supreme Court · 1987
- Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Rain-BoldtCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Lufkin-Beaumont Motor Coaches, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1948
- American Physicians Insurance Exchange v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- American Physicians Insurance Exchange v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.