170 S.W. 110 | Tex. App. | 1914
Appellee sued appellant for the value of a trunk and its contents, checked as baggage upon a ticket from Corpus Christi to Kerrville. Appellant urged certain special exceptions, and alleged that the trunk was destroyed by a fire which consumed appellant's depot and warehouse at Kerrville, that such fire originated without negligence on its part, and that at the time thereof it was holding the trunk as a warehouseman, and was therefore not liable for its loss. Plaintiff obtained a judgment in the justice's court for $113.58, and upon *111 appeal to the district court, upon a trial before the court, was awarded a judgment for $98.38.
2. The trunk contained, in addition to various articles admitted to be baggage, two razors worth $4, one winter suit worth $15, one dozen photographs worth $1.50, and $25 in cash.
3. Appellee was returning to his home situated about 21 miles from Kerrville. He testified upon cross-examination that he was traveling in the summer time and shipping his winter suit home; that he had been gone all winter. There was no testimony with regard to the photographs and money except the bare statement that the same were contained in the trunk. Appellee intended to take a hack at Kerrville and thus complete his journey to his home. He did not testify to any intention to make a return trip from his home.
2. It is a matter of common knowledge that razors are used by men upon journeys and upon the completion thereof, and the court did not err in holding that no explanatory allegations were required to show that the two razors constituted baggage.
3. The dozen photographs, whether of appellee, and intended to be distributed to his relatives and friends, or of others and intended for his enjoyment, cannot be said to constitute household goods, and were such an article as the carrier might reasonably contemplate would be carried upon a journey home, and we, therefore, hold that the court did not err in holding the same to be baggage without explanatory averments and proof.
4. The winter suit constituted baggage, even though appellee did not intend to use the same upon his trip. For that matter, he did not intend to use many of the articles in the trunk upon the trip, but did intend to use them upon the completion thereof. The fact that he might have had no use for the winter suit until cold weather, or fashion's decree, regardless of climatic conditions, authorized its use, would not deprive such suit of its character as baggage. This is not a case where a person made a trip in the summer intending only a short stay and took winter clothing without any intention of using same, and therefore the case of Railway v. Meek,
5. The law with respect to carrying money as baggage was fully discussed by Justice Neill in the case of T. N. O. Ry. v. Lawrence,
The third and sixth assignments of error are sustained, and the others overruled.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.