4 S.W.2d 193 | Tex. App. | 1928
In December, 1924, appellants S. B. Conn, R. M. Curtis, and W. P. Smith, operating a ranch near Camptown, Newton county, Tex., rounded up 400 or 500 head of their cattle at that point for the purpose of feeding them through the winter. While holding them there for that purpose a heavy freeze came on about the 21st of December, killing more than 150 head of these cattle. On the 3d of December, prior to the freeze, anticipating their need for feed, appellants ordered from the Interstate Feed Company of Fort Worth, Tex., a carload of meal and hulls, which was shipped to Camptown under bill of lading dated the 11th of December, but was not delivered until the 29th of December, after the death of the cattle. The bill of lading was issued by appellee Texas New Orleans Railroad Company, and the shipment was to move over that road from Dallas to Beaumont; from Beaumont to Mauriceville, a distance of about 20 miles, *194 with the appellee Kansas City Southern Railway Company; from Mauriceville to Gist over appellee Orange Northwestern; and from Gist to Camptown over appellee S. N. V. Railroad Company. Appellants pleaded that defendants were negligent in the delivery of the feed, and that this negligence proximately caused their damage. Their damages being special, they sought to recover on three grounds: (a) Defendants were notified at or before the issuance of the bill of lading that the feed was intended for appellants, their need of the feed for the use of their cattle, and that the cattle would die if the feed was not delivered at Camptown within a reasonable time, and that a reasonable time in which to deliver the feed from Dallas to Camptown was five days. (b) Appellee had such notice from the character of the feed itself. (c) After the shipment and before delivery appellants gave to the agents of certain of the appellees, other than the initial carrier, notice of their special need for the feed and the consequences that would result from delay in its delivery and with such notice appellees were guilty of negligence in tracing and delivering the feed.
The proof is without controversy that no notice was given to the initial carrier, Texas New Orleans Railroad Company, or to any of the other carriers at or prior to the execution and delivery of the bill of lading. On its face the bill of lading showed that the shipment was received from planters' Cotton Seed Products Company; that it was consigned to Interstate Feed Company at Camptown, Tex., and consisted of 100 sacks of cotton seed meal and 300 sacks cotton seed hulls. Admittedly, appellees had no actual notice at the time of the execution of the contract that the feed was intended for appellants, nor of their special need for it, nor that delay in its delivery might be harmful. That such notice could not be implied from the fact that the shipment consisted of cotton seed meal and hulls was clearly announced by the court in Payne v. Reynolds (Tex.Civ.App.)
"The rule seems to be settled that plaintiff, in order to recover special damages for breach of a contract, must show that at the date of the contract defendant had notice of the special conditions rendering such damages the natural and probable result of such breach."
See, also, Gulf, C. S. F. Railway Co. v. Gilbert,
That no negligence was shown in the delivery of the feed after its arrival at Camptown clearly distinguishes this case from Bourland v. Railway Co.,
That there can be no liability for breach of contract, "unless there exist special circumstances at the time of the execution of the contract, of which the obligor has notice, from which it ought reasonably be foreseen that such a loss would naturally and probably result from a breach of his obligation. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341; M., K.
T. Ry. Co. v. Belcher,
The Court of Civil Appeals in L. B. Menefee Lumber Co. v. Davis, etc. (Tex.Civ.App.)
"Appellee is seeking in this ease to offset special damages against the claim of appellant, and in order to do so has the burden of showing that at the date of the contract appellant had notice of the special conditions rendering such damages the natural and probable result of its breach, under circumstances showing that the contract was to some extent based upon or made with reference to such conditions. M., K. T. Ry. Co. v. Belcher,
On the statement made by us there was proof of subsequent notice of the special conditions creating the need for the feed, but no negligence on the part of appellees in tracing and delivering the car after such notice. Appellants' evidence on the issue of negligence offered by them to sustain that issue was excluded by the court, and due assignment is made here of that ruling. It is not necessary for us to discuss the action of the court in excluding this testimony, since, as we have just said, had negligence been shown, it would not have made appellees liable.
Appellees advance other counter propositions to sustain the judgment of the trial court, which we do not discuss, since we think the judgment is correctly affirmed on the theory that appellees had no notice of the special damages claimed at the date of the contract.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.