Payne v. White House Lumber Co.

CO, WHITE v. HOUSE PAYNE (231S.W.) might judicial verdict, but, as that court will take notice of fact the upon the fendants company prior revised case plaintiff latter was the the trial deprive the had done evidence, he upon and the former Director General in the court longer gov- been adverse entitled to by injustice might'suffer an below, he and ernment at time. not bound he was taking direction a ease <¡=>89 juris- 3. Court has be reversed anticipate, Com.merce —District will proceed- and diction suit to recover ex- for further remanded the cause and freight charges cess made in violation In- ings.” terstate Commerce Commission rule. had case, court if the in this So jurisdiction The district court of a suit has freight charges verdict adopted finally the construction to recover excessive and de- appellees would by appellants, upon insisted murrage paid protest, though the initial presenting ain opportunity of an had is with trial, the facts which all new rates; motion Commission to fix establish and rules and inequitable court charges being make recover demanded upon construction in violation of the Interstate Com- a render fixing demurrage judgment here would merce Commission’s rule rendition a charges freight rates, opportunity. to assail the deprive of this them rule as unreasonable. 293, 3 Moore, v. of Moore controversy a 'Testimony where con- 4. to what <§=>489 Evidence — verdict, said: construction where stituted admissible wit- ness testified he knew the value. interpret- correctly may court that the “It against damages may for_ jury, In an action a railroad language or it ed shortage entitled between agreed that defendant agree destination of certain coal land, failed cars of de- half to one involving consignee, witness, title to of a livered issues of such true construction As coal was the market value half. that at the amount other nor this verdict, plus carriage giving lower neither and tax a mines speculate. must The verdict permitted place on each is find at each by pleadings in made issues all the that he was admissible where he testified mistake. language not admit of value, does knew continuation, end, .should <§=>48(3) of action for ex- 5. Action controversy.” —Causes ' cessive judgment, shortage joined. damages properly former coal to our adhere rehearing will be overruled. a of action railroad ex- motion Causes charges, demurrage charges cessive damages exacted, shortage wrongfully properly delivered, joined, since of coal grew and were out of contracts all contractu, delicto, ex not ex the HOUSE LUMBER CO. PAYNE parties. same (No. 1750.) <§=>255(7) Testimony from rec- 6. Witnesses — though admissible, made witness was Appeals ords Texas. (Court Amarillo. of Civil Rehearing records themselves exhibits and witness May 11, Denied 1921. independent 1921.) recollection facts. had June company against In an action railroad <§=>5'/ n Key-No. plain- New, 6A of coal delivered to 1. Railroads agent under tiff, of federal busi- Series-Substitution delivery, Transportation Act. ness at arrival, agent appointed their two The substitution of federal though missible, Transportation witness from his rec- Act 1920 as defendant attached to his ords which were the Director General and a rail- a suit company, though an exhibit two made without the notice road keep ordinarily required practice, were to correct records the state is suf- transactions, ap- of such the cars were unloaded ficient where such notice waived un- direction, whoBigned pearance plead- der his made he and and ings the entries at the time of for the Director General and making objection trial, sheets from tak- identified the ing a.tthe tes- he exceptions. office, bills of records from tified al- though independent had recollection of < n =44—Judicial Evidence notice Direc- weights. tor General Railroads succeeded Agent orig- <§=>255(7) Testimony 7. Witnesses of President. — admissible, brought against inal witness Where suit railroad though book in which same company Railroads, the Director General of offered in evidence. thereafter, case, before trial of the Agent witness, dismissed succeeded of the the Where in an action to recover President under Act from railroad topic Key-Numbered Digests other eases see same in all and KEY-NUMBER <&=For Indexes 231 S.W.-27 (Tes. SOUTHWESTERN jection expense weight plaintiff, as to to the introduction bill and to testified of delivered coal, delivered, showing thexweight from certain of a car of of certain cars allowing the therein time, court fact that in amount him at the made sheets, kept not stated. were the book in which inad- render them not in evidence did offered support <§=>134 13.Carriers held to —Evidence missible; in hook relevant judgment though shortage delivered, for coal being admissible. to the issue probable there was chance of or loss — <§=>255(7) Testimony to ascertaining weight 8. Witnesses error in thereof. and entered of coal of cars Evidence to held sufficient unloading admis- of at time books witness shortage amount of a for in coal de- superior toas sible, witness’ where consignee livered to ped due to its been of entries. correctess open money loading cars to save from a railroad recover of an action to In though unloading, of probable chance plain- shortage company tiff, to coal delivered ascertaining loss or error in of a witness thereof. admissible, part delivered of of two cars weights him in the entered were Appeal Court, Hemphill from District unloading, which books at County; Ewing, Judge. W. R. general tes- duty, and of his Action' the White House Dumber Com- made. entries to the correctness tified as pany against Hines, Walker D. Director <§=3376(I) 'Testimony of witness- Evidence 9. — Railroads, General of & Panhandle coal admissible of cars toas es along Railway Company, Santa Fé wherein John showing tickets scale with Barton was substituted as defendant. pounds. weights cars Judgment plaintiff, and defendant John to a railroad action In an Payne appeals. Affirmed. plain- to coal delivered recover tiff, Terry, Mills, Galveston, out Cavin & of witnesses shipment, points Hoover, Willis, initial Canadian, coal at Hoover & cars of rec- appellant. line their in the empty and when cars ord of Jennings, Canadian, ap- Sanders & original scale loafred pellee. corresponded on entries with the tickets, which admissible, scale were the books, their tickets HUFF, compa- J. The C. lumber themselves, ny, corporation, originally petition filed its stamped net, gross, were tare and 2,1919, against in the district December figures done; on the tickets weighing being Hines, Walker D. Director General of pounds and not tons. mean construed Administration, United States Railroad <§=>100(1) Though cars Carriers 10. — Railway Company. Panhandle & Santa Fé though carrier, washouts, owing to bunched alleged shortage for weights sued demurrage for fault, entitled without point shipment shipper such case. allowed free weights at destination of a number of cars of through no fault Though bunched cars shipped Colorado to its owing washouts over carrier Deer, Pampa, Miami, offices at White control, collect demur- no it had Tex.; Canadian, shortage alleged the total grant the rules rage shipper free time tons, up be 21 made of several thousand conditions, making it im- under pounds shortage named, each of the cars get possible cars alleged and of stipulate demurrage also rules and which per ton, $10 total $210. All of refunded. shall shipments year during said 1918. occurred <§=3926(1) Appeal —Where 11. right itAlso claimed ato sustaining after issue admitted exception, demurrage charges paid refund of various amended, pre- it is protest during year under 1918 on a changed mind. sumed shipments number of different of coal and demurrage Where, to recover in an destination, -Canadian, alleg- Tex., lumber at protest, court admitted ing shipment of said were de- demur- amount of bill to layed in transit delivered such num- rage therefor hav- rendered exceptions thereto, consignee’s por- daily bers as to exceed the and that rate sustained petition suing and also that tion exceeded presumed appeal out, pellee’s it will be not stricken facilities for within the changed , his mind. free for which the would not occurred. total amount <§=>135 Carriers 12. —Where damage $643.25, legal claimed was in- of car of coal delivered bills consignee, allowing no error terest on same from amount date collection. sought therein. is also to recover for an over- charge on a car to recover for of lumber from an action consignee Calcasieu, Da., Deer, Tex., where there ob- to White delivered in the Digests <§=>ITor topic Key-Numbered other cases see same in all KEY-NTJMBER Indexes PAYNE WHITE HOUSE CO. ;.w.) legal thereof, pending date reason $185.22 sum interest from suit should any payment overcharge. originally The latter abate carrier December, control, during was made then during January, Hines, substitution of accordance with the and arrived provision abatement, act, plea Walker D. filed a prays judgment first, upon based, for in accordance with that as to the original petition. Payne by overcharge claim freight and of substituted for rules of order entered record such matters were supplemental peti- same term at tion Payne of the which such the Interstate Commerce Commission States, filed. citation or that such No notice to Commission United jurisdiction issued, and defendant Hines ex- has to determine the correctness Hemp- cepted thereof, action of the court. The case district court jurisdiction county jury, hill have of the was tried before the court without did not judgment same, to recover in the absence of a and court rendered Payne plaintiff’s any appli- Agent, petition that John Barton Federal for in Septem- $974.59, from Com- thereon cation had been made to the Interstate with interest relief, Payne 1, for further a mo- merce Commission ber 1920. John Barton filed appeal complained that of in the suit tion trial and an bond and the matter for new brings Fé for Panhandle & Santa this court review. occurred case before while this Railway Company first, second, assign [1, under the control of 2] The third Railway Administration, the United States of error relate to the action of the ments plea, Aug- filing judgment and that at the time in John repre- Payne gust Agent administration of the Ad such Barton Railroad Payne, ministration, D. John Barton Walker that the reason he had no sented dismissed, having that John Hines Barton been and could not substituted as a mat be notice Payne cited, being having ter law without no should upon him, case suit, he asked that the which reason tice served that the court overruling that erred in defendant’s motion continued. having plea been over- abatement the cause be continued Such . noted, appellant. citing defendant Hines record shows in this ruled then answer, Payne, Agent, he ex- that John Barton case substituted filed supplemental various cepted grounds for Hines petition upon pleaded entering the Panhandle that and order of court before & respon- Company the trial of case. Hines Fé Santa appear Com- sible; have been railroad the action of the mental represented dismissed that appellee filing supple over the claim its mission had freight petition. attorneys claim that The same that presented railway such Com- been and the group being Payne ; arose that the cars in his motion trial new mission an un- nature of appeal in the ,in act of God ease. and on The case which caus- the track precedented fully developed washout seems to without to accumulate facts, repre ed the on the' and counsel trial court defendant; any negligence on the Payne senting time or at that this time open shipped such that the coal they represented defendant in the that show naturally permit it to es- some of objections taking as would court, making shipments therefrom; cape that exception action of the court bills public to save however, convenience for the money Regional rulings, signing various in its and that the that the attorney railway com for Hines ruling made a Director had except pany, motion for new trial. pay would for loss and administration damage in the record tak There is bill en except shipped Hines, in- certain reciting when so fire, theft, arising etc. He also stances facts above set out reference misjoinder pleaded Payne in that Hines, of causes without the substitution citation freight, notice, stating the would at or did not that the require entirely adju- appear torneys three different dications; However, qualifies also, that the would be trial court Hines. causes, shrinkage stating such as to natural that if counsel due below, here, appearing plaintiff were not route. en ion pleaded trial, .it, supplemental that since did not hear that— this suit the recites the institution of President appointed has John United States appeared by plaintiff at- and defendant “Both representative of all railroads un- jury ready trial, torneys, and a announced control, to succeed Walker der waived, being all of fact as well matters as court Hines, appointment being in virtue of D. the court. submitted to law Congress, provided Specifical- pleading act having read, an ly heard .appointment, argument counsel, being offered, (Tes. 231 SOUTHWESTERN

tice main party, contend tions Hines was appellee then take defense party made a order and anomalous names were Hines, vised decrees making company, regard versed complainant, substitute without notice.' However would be diversity narily for determination tified in made would be therefore but we were then of the 179 N. W. to final this Government, of 1920 to hold that it would be sufficient This 227 W. litigation the facts the method the case under our that in the substitution To reverse this case this court required. However, longer suit meaning John state, Hines to and his in. notice or citation (Mo.) required and that John Barton trial court. To hold that to the cause party. that he had not made party, an the trial court and make a and does not affect the of Gundlach v. of this case holding any is some time sufficient to continue a Director fact that he was the said cause.” required. advantage Stat. while notice or citation is ordi- 985, and the case of Kersten v. practice dismissed from the case appearance, lower 223 W. 586. question in tire pending, opinion among in fact by suit, of that objections under the but method which signed' supplemental law, satisfying the rather procedure We call S. Act. We take the court in review and at 456), which the for Hines upon a bald court, preserves when he was Payne, ground', bring by the forum where here prior the name act, or, and' as one of service to the General There seems to of his was rather a expressed very upon pending, renders opinion the case was and we think under especial of Hines v. action may Railway that the transition for him to the trial of this Agent, treating appellant notice or service at that These cases attorneys, a new same his rendering judg- upon that Hines was in other practice bills of an does not abate court was pleadings Payne may Agent courts, rights may be, technicality. judicial attention to rights, appearance Payne. entitled to waived under the to still re- same is with the jurisdiction Interstate Commerce objections party, should be Co. represent- simply to litigation time. complete 61 L. Ed. longer presume possibly practice strange Collins, others; opinion not re- words, excep- E. 248. whose (Wis.) abe seem as a a time jus- Act and as no- yet we If at the various pellant U. S. effect the Railway admission of the what 192 Fed. which the road’s not involve a has the v. which the Interstate Commerce Commission not er with the Commission to fix and establish rules and rates for terminal had no of a of this character the regulations sion. authorized to be collected under the rules filed with the Interstate Commerce Commis vania not ing gal right of the presumption pearance, v. did Statutes, be to do in violation of the have been more Gimbel v. Sup. termine the claim with reference to demur- York v. rules of the sion and for that reason the district court suit to recover signments should be overruled. Smith v. Carty, rage Commission. It is asserted that the on such claim involved a construction of the Commission tacking the rule of the Interstate Commerce C. J. Smith, court in the ^{[4] [3]} Anderson, Sonman Shaft transportation charges. carriage present appear by shipper rule assailed, Ct. pp. 1362, 1364,1365,1340,1341; The fifth The fourth and sixth 477, Ry. Co., practice market face The initial 29 Tex. Civ. rate as 123 S. W. contends jurisdiction. jurisdiction. receiving demurrage State, 46 inso or rate Co. v. 540, freight charges § and to set aside the appeared should have been. U. S. 251; Railway 38 Barrett 8572; an 61 L. Ed. and carrier is what was the to collect fixing demurrage charges the mine that he had then made his 152 S. W. 679 but it was the act of demand 113 C. the record. We believe the as- places Sup. counsel and answer would be 242 administrative Rogers, being unreasonable, in interstate assignment of the district court to de carrier under its that this was not evidence specific, Coal tax, liability depends face Railway 198; Railway jurisdiction, U. S. rule. The Ct. App. 616, (D. C.) of coal. The C. A. We think in an action prices only question This is not a suit at 188; was its by Co., of the reasonableness 550, destination. The 75 Ya. demanded' and 208, and assert that the almost a conclusive the Commission is Co. v. 414; Railway W. (6). 242 U. S. Co. v. 62 L. 215 charges, 37 R. H. it findings 69 S. W. petition the defendant question commerce, based on U. S. below, Sup. is Fed. Solum, v. witness in Ed. 556, course, rules and coal, Lewellen, Compiled and does apparent Stone as Pennsyl Commis but is a petition 120, or oth Morris Ct. or the 1221; 1004; 84 deny plus does 247 Mc not ap Co. 95, le 37 mitting if hut ex 21 Tex. which were in his hands the amount at think there of its mi, good, names of the The sheets were in his “Sure.” The made and I know made the entries refusing tition, of action. weighing cars he admitting to be at the time he was “I find those habit ness was difference inal books and known as to show the sheets the ties. tracts of S. W. ords of all business 7 S. 1023(2). that the his records ed to his cause the witness did weights; which were an exhibit assignments I entered it at the time the sheets and weights witness dence To Assignment We think no he knew [6] The mines, and his duties were records, “absolutely were unloaded under his market value. necessary Elder v. 201 S. only give 975; Railway present contractu, this evidence. 635, of each witness was He then stated oral statement keeping that he coal, keeping seventh deposition detachable is shown tenth evidence shows were on what is All three to Ford’s the coal as was unloaded and sustain original merely W. pages; 8 and weight their arrival figures testimony testimony 11 asserts exhibit Railway Co., drivers, only Harless stated, reversible carriage the correct original 1040; ear. correct for the no reversible correct records. This wit- them and between the discuss these kept 9. We times detached and are from the that ha examined the causes that time. He said he The witness Co. and were the best evi- records wholly dependent part are correct.” He had sheets, deposition, transactions, such handwriting were Fowler v. PAYNE to be value, Railway misjoinder books, charge the invoice records sheet of the the business at Mia- of J. weight each a book that he was v. not remember the stated in the error is Haile, two cars Dowe,, Tex. do not keep grew then correct.” These Miami, and the interrogatories, urges tax, giving shipment. H. Ford. deposition urges unloaded, direction, weights etc., of the same. error assignments, were attach- y. petition. of two Co. reason that correct rec- in his hand record, Davenport, out was asked purporting ex delicto Co. answered, same admitting shown believe it his office and were are error obj'ected and the and the v. of coal. of con Tex. causes sheets sheet. Hap orig- par dence, The etc. the witness stated he had no be- pe shown, HOUSE I !.W.) tion of a memory, in book form. The evidence shows ness. time the same solutely residing ollection of Railway 2). In correctly kept, ity. We think this ied which Robert Coleman. As to sheets were did not tainly man’s fied the book to appellant’s assignments present testified not weighed mony by tire book should be testimony man, by or the them. 67 S. W. the entries made and that weighed by two views on case of Schaff entry the weighed amination assignments. tached [8] The ^[7] admissible. This cars of coal sheets had been out of the admit Coleman were entered in the books at us in himself at the Pampa, appellee, court or testimony, testimony v. permanent testimony. Civ. There was no error in The fact that was admissible for the reasons duty. fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, on the sheets identified to his Blanton, and there was no error in this case the render the sheets inadmissible. Cer correct in Arizona. We the book relevant to Co. v. and when he states and entered considering and entered memorandum made testimony could have been offered if the books App. twelfth, thirteenth, this character of of Mr. appellant by us, the other Tex. His objection goes kept of six testified ds to the possession Mr. Enc. of deposition. entries p. entries As to that and we Arnett, weighed by weights, testimony admissible, original 725c; 63 CO. did not was not offered Cravens, from memorandum made Stone, Railway weighed, Holmes, which was 94 S. W. offered. cars, Tex. does not shows the book in court has sheets offered were the the tenth and eleventh Evidence, the same witness W. M. we Dilworth, think himself, part testimony 219 S. W. 232 but also the entries and being kept give go think, although think, Coleman. four of Cyc. p. 387, himself weighed by to that he could independent him to its general manager sufficiently the books were evidence in the of which the issue which contend the and1fourteenth by him 207; refreshing admitting correctness of expressed Enc. after an taken, admissibil which Startz, which he the testi sheets at examina- were ab- Tex, correctly only witness, of Cole Part of weights offering part of Evi Craven et p. as he eight- given Cole were veri wit- 421 cop rec- seq. use ex en its 42 ' (Tex. SOUTHWESTERN the common stood definition of ings loaded that the car witnesses show this the gross sum, the pounds Appellant considered the remainder to be and not “Gross” and er 847 referred scale tickets testified tickets are attached seems these loaded ferent These inal as error error, ing ray, and fifth, rious cars respective them. showed, versible error ruled tion of the eenth, ing the of the witnesses tive further discussion. ty-sixth assignments present It The twentieth us, each car. such sheets cars, gross that the evidence or benefit tickets them or is in commercial scale tickets and duties sheets of tickets do for the reasons witnesses show to weights. twenty-second, twenty-third, weighed 129,000 tons, urged or tons. initial of cars they same. the action tons. The difference between the there was 847 tons be the imputing twenty-seventh Richard seems make has twenty-first, nothing nineteenth tenth ought less the meaning kept a record of the two dif “tare” have well and entries on their' it cannot be determined wheth- correspond. The out the cars when average of John As giving which a and will be overruled without certainly given holding and tare. in the course of their If it weighed by These They original contention of and eleventh terms. Yoyles, assignment presents illustrating: out the cars of coal at the tons or they kept Evans, will be time and to the trial of the court was transactions was tons to their tare, specify reasons for of the terms as admitting given 44,300 assignments Lane, twenty-fourth, compared assignments man. justified by it the correct assignments Proelich, pounds. It manifest the was It who, in the line of their gained by is them and entered in our considera- Howard J. Mur is books would, whether was tons and when as a result of the act or contention that depositions. amount of 129,000 on 84,700 pounds. not set out and do not show true rate See Webster’s assignments. appellant 84,700pounds, pounds. known mean- the carrier line 44,300 tare no reversible the court a find- the evidence say and within excess of is asserted. empty and warranted rier books overruling The court of the va are to the admitting appellant and Moss had not testimony of record judgment are over- it the original discuss- twenty- reason. net. gross under- respec- it weigh- seems no re- twen- scale orig that The should have been collected. The or each of rate is allowed for It 48 for was no charge, be allowed such free time as he been entitled to charged by lected lee. These cause the pounds, overcharges lant ground tiff did not sue for protest, court and no amendment was filed ble that it tained there rage, tion, ninth the amount with the items for erred in missible. think and control. which were not evidence, weights ment. At court’s,eyes of each sent stamped think, the witness that the traction and dreds, weigher [10-11]The transit, hours, accordance with the first owing washouts, to the trial court cars succeeding Nos. and were sustained up but sued for the automatically stamped and will exceptions thereto, pay demurrage charges. demurrage was that . on the recovery only for our done free daily shipment, are published 4 are bunched It seems or weighing with the scale Appellant’s objections any rate, go freight law. As on giving through are as exceptions appear that the cars were bills and in the five that particular giving dim, set out the easily so, amendment tickets. The twenty-eighth day. objected destination, ground they correspond had the cars days; inspection. sought do not are to the effect the court the units good but can be discerned we when none accumulated numbers in tariff rates and misinterpreted was done. The no fault of the its made. weights, gross we The rules overcharge allegations concerning the rate demurrage paid only the trial court’s $5 over which it had no as ours. The number, that and' we are not able to daily apprehend demurrage thousands and tickets attached witnesses, and that thereafter neglect that there or had for allege for the rate filed. The and in and delivered demurrage a matter tickets, consignee it was not lia original point, rate of provide expense bills, to be introduced in per was due bunched, is shown to the bill to show would have tens. of the car $2 The demurrage the tickets on demur- sixth it. delivered figures with the by appel- rules evidence, railroad, were ad- hundred the trial the trial was given per together days on twenty- appel when plain really shall over If he judg- peti tare, hun- day sus col sub- are but be are or be or so merit. ly these rules for high collected undér to collect get prescribed and washouts the cars were tination. causes, The may conditions. ed was es judgment appellant pleaded the rules loss the coal have lieve this funded out but is here before in his would seem holding therein stated. The other freight In the absence of mony, ably ting Tex. ments authorities cited. in the tion circumstances we cars at one of tions. Texas Land sidered Stock [13] The be canceled or demanded judgment no evidence case. suing rendered water or snowdrift reference causes Co., for such No Assignments trial court. assignment, and, the cars was his action as is error in demurrage sought evidence lost, This of the court. evidence sufficient demurrage justified free granted propositions 198 S. point riot thirty-third This appellant has demurrage charges named. rules seems being true, time. This or was corrected in will trial court ascertaining detention refunded, collected, sum. think we That & Loan shipment. understand the stipulated conditions therefore for the free shall made, It will this court. account of Matheson PAYNE v. proven allowing ruling bill, therefore his the trial court are not well taken. “Yes,” think, shipper under such manifest, portion probable it demurrage collect- be collected paragraph demurrage charg- changed provision is and seems if Co. is shown when for loss $187.50. evidently through named bunched are number be affirmed. he understood of two certain because impossible ought shall observed to this not stricken assert these recovered v. C. Live car of assessed not entitled high time which justified in Under because of Winter, 93 during the record particular Lane. chance of prompt- amount , B. at des- assign- assails sive not to instru- admit- wrong be re- excep- recon- water prob- testi- there mind coal. coal. peti- !.W.) (231 be or HOUSE LUMBER CO. peared appellant for the that we erred in was ficient to show 229 S. W. 44. through Payne. act order of is, we market market not market ed witness as to ed as pened The witness and price freight. Q. value was? A. Yes. acquainted tainly appellant; knew. The answers were sufficient to to the effect of Stone’s value, value it have market has the market value mit him knew was his evidence. Because the market to the consumer. We think the shown there at the “Did that character It The motion for The court then asked some its value changing freight, negative construe through as such that his dealer appointed his successor. We to be the same cost under the fifth insisted something and then price, value price. removal record, On Motion for were the delivery, in effect at the time of act of and when give Do trial court our in effect its then was asked trial material This witness was —” carriage See you holding questions ruling rehearing proceeded represented under fact continued to Congress answer commodity court. We see no reason attorneys coal was the mine places as cost know that that appellants asked agent, Hines, was I it was on 'that it think the record suf- was there? A. Rehearing. profit charged; evidently know that coal have market him: the mine did in this the coal our conclusion charged v. Stockton will took what to show how he if he appointed. government price. price was an exten- delivered? questions. destination, values. point. effect, holding selling price carriage strenuously government the various trial action, coal had knew injure overruled. represent- substitut- shipment. lost. whatever Sure. way cost How toot govern- Hines court, (Ark.) error. After price fully said, that hap- Cer- last per- Did did As

Case Details

Case Name: Payne v. White House Lumber Co.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: May 11, 1921

Citation: 231 S.W. 417

Docket Number: No. 1750.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.