Northern Pac. Ry. Co., First Nat. Bank of Pullman v. (Wash.).... 4 751 Oates v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo.). 916 Omaha. K. C. & E. R. Co. et al., Grant v. (Mo.). 953 Omaha, K. C. & E. Ry. Co., Weldon v. (Mo.)... 244 Oregon Short Line R. Co., Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Montana v. (Mont.). 432 Orleans & J. Ry. Co., Limited, Cameron et al. v. (La.). 829 Orthwein-Fitzhugh Cotton Co., Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Pawkett, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.). Philadelphia, H. & P. R. Co., Mountz et al. v. (Pa.). 416 Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., Weaver v. (Pa.) 198 Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., Webb v. (Pa.)... 592 Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Viers et al. (Ky.).. 62 Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Gillispie, Surveyor, (Ind.) 394 Porter v. Charleston & S. Ry. Co. (S. Car.).......... 657 Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Montana v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (Mont.).. 432 Prescott & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Smith (Ark.). 809 Purple v. Union Pac. R. Co. (C. C. A.). . . . . . 711 Railroad Commission of Louisiana v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. (La.).. 31 Rapid Ry. Co., Brown v. (Mich.). 819 Read v. City & Suburban Ry. Co. (Ga.). 278 Reasor, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.) 281 Reed, Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. (Ind.).. 627 Reed v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Mo.)... 262 Reese et al., Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.).. 673 Rider v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Ry. Co. (N. Y.). 635 Rutherford, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.). Ryan v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (N. Y.) Scarborough, Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.). Shreveport & R. R. Val. Ry. Co., Armistead v. (La.) 868 292 513 Sims, Sheriff, v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. et al. (N. Car.). 388 927 166 Smith v. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. (Ind.).... 116 599 809 . Smith et al., Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. (C. C. A.). Smith et ux. v. Wilmington & W. R. Co. (N. Car.).. Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v. Moore (Ind.).. Southern Pac. Co. v. Schoer (C. C. A.).. Southern Pac. Co. v. Winton et al. (Tex.). 224 772 South Chicago City Ry. Co. et al. v. City of Chicago (I11.). 484 251 254 358 Southwestern Missouri Electric Ry. Co., Loker v. (Mo.). State ex rel. Cunningham et al. v. Jack et al. (S. Car.) 132 896 135 822 274 300 Syracuse Rapid Transit Ry. Co., Rider v. (N. Y.). 635 368 417 34 906 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Gardner (C. C. A.). Texas & P. Ry. Co. et al. v. McCarty (Tex.). Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Parker (Tex.).. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Rutherford (Tex.) Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Seay (Tex.). Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Smith et al. (C. C. A.).. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Tribble (Tex.). 759 654 906 334 866 224 32 Thurmond, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.). United States ex rel. Coffman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. et al. (W. Va.).. United States ex rel. Coffman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. et al. (W. Va.).. 70 19 United States ex rel. Kellogg et al. v. Lehigh Val. R. Co. (N. Y.)... 682 United States v. St. Anthony R. Co. (C. C. A.).. 398 Viers et al., Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. (Ky.). 62 Vinson et al., International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. (Tex.) Washington, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Company, Chesapeake West Chester St. Ry. Co., Borough of West Chester v. (Pa.). 912 Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co. et al. (Ky.).. 510 Wilder, Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. (C. C. A.) 493 Williams et al. v. International & G. N. R. Co. (Tex.). Williams et al., Jack v. (S. Car.).... Williamsport Pass. Ry. Co., City of Williamsport, to Use of Sicilian Asphalt Pav. Co. of New York, v. (Pa.)....... Wilmington & W. R. Co., Smith et ux. v. (N. Car ) Wilson, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. (Ark.). Winton et al., Southern Pac. Co. v. (Tex.). Wood et ux., Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. (Tex.). Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Faust (Miss.) Zahn v. Milwaukee & S. Ry. Co. (Wis.). 778 10 568 772 793 358 936 818 268 RAILROAD REPORTS GULF, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. DARBY et al. (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Feb. 5, 1902.) [67 S. W. Rep. 129.] Failure to Deliver Goods-Destruction by Storm-Conversion.t Where a railway company received a car load of wheat for transportation, and, owing to delay in carriage and delivery at the point of destination, it was still in possession of the company, when a large part of it was destroyed by an unusual storm, the company is not liable for conversion of the wheat so destroyed. Same-Same-Same. Where a railroad company received a car load of wheat for transportation, and while in the company's possession a large portion of it was destroyed by a storm, and the company recovered a portion of the wheat and retained it an unreasonable time, the company is liable for conversion of the wheat so recovered and retained. On Motion for Rehearing. Same-Notice to Consignee‡—Breach of Contract-Pleading. Where, in an action against a railway company to recover the value of a car load of wheat which was shipped over the road and not delivered, the petition does not mention a contract to notify the consignee of the receipt of the wheat at its destination, or allege a breach of such condition, plaintiff cannot recover on the ground of such breach. Appeal from Lampasas county court; D. C. Thomas, Judge. Action by Darby & Cauthen against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed. Ballinger Mills and J. W. Terry, for appellant. FISHER, C. J. This is an action by appellees against the railway company to recover the value of a car load of wheat shipped by appellees over appellant's road from the town of Lometa, in Lampasas county, to the city of Galveston, which, it was alleged, by reason of the negligence of the defendant, was never delivered to the appellees or the consignee at the place of destination. Appellees recovered the full value of the car load of wheat. The testimony shows that there was a few days' delay in transporting the wheat to Galveston, and in keeping the same by the carrier at that point before the disastrous storm that occurred there on September 7, 1900, by which most of the wheat in the car was destroyed. After the storm a part of the wheat in the car was recovered, and it was retained in possession of the railway company for *See generally, note appended to Spence v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 708. See generally, 2 Rap. & Mack's Dig. 125 et seq. See 2 Rap. & Mack's Dig. 97. Also, see notes, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 275; 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 133; 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 649. |