Haberzettle v. T. B. V. Ry. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Barber

    60 Tex. Civ. App. 234 (Tex. Civ. App. 1910)   Cited 3 times

    In the absence of allegations or proof that defendant had notice that such damage would result in the event of a delay, no recovery could be had for such special damage, and the admission of the testimony complained of, for the reasons stated in the assignment, was error. Haberzettle v. Trinity B. V. Ry. Co., 46 Texas Civ. App. 527[ 46 Tex. Civ. App. 527]; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Kemp, 28 S.W. 905; Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pickens, 58 S.W. 157. E. A. Rice and A. C. Barber, for appellee.

  2. S.A. A.P. Ry. Co. v. Houston Packing Co.

    106 Tex. 383 (Tex. 1914)   Cited 2 times

    — Evidence as to what the car was to be loaded with would be irrelevant and inadmissible, unless appellants knew at the time they made the contract for shipment, or when they accepted the car, that it was being transported for the purpose of being loaded with oil and returned. Pacific Express Company v. Darnell, 62 Tex. 640; M., K. T. Ry. Co. v. Belcher, 89 Tex. 428 [ 89 Tex. 428]; C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Elevator Light Co., 87 S.W. 754; Haberzettle v. T. B.V. Ry. Co., 46 Texas Civ. App. 527[ 46 Tex. Civ. App. 527]; Pacific Express Co. v. Jones, 52 Texas Civ. App. 367[ 52 Tex. Civ. App. 367]; Wells-Fargo Co. Express v. Thompson, 53 Texas Civ. App. 515[ 53 Tex. Civ. App. 515]; Express Co. v. Battle, 5 Texas Civ. App. 532[ 5 Tex. Civ. App. 532]; Hutcheson, Carriers, sec. 1369. The appellants having had no notice at the time of the delivery of the car, or prior to the signing of the bill of lading, that tank cars had no fixed rental value during the year, but that their rental value was determined by how badly the appellee would need the car, in the event it was delayed beyond reasonable time, such evidence was immaterial to any issue in the case.

  3. Walker v. Stephens

    3 Ark. App. 205 (Ark. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 33 times
    In Walker v. Stephens, 3 Ark. App. 205, 626 S.W.2d 200 (1981), the Arkansas Court of Appeals interpreted Arkansas Code § 57-136, which uses language nearly identical to that of A.R.S. § 14-5103, to address the same issue as that raised in this appeal. The plaintiff in Walker, a member of the armed forces reporting to duty in another state, executed a power of attorney authorizing her attorney to compromise and settle a personal injury claim.

    Prior to the enactment of Ark. Stat. Ann. 57-136 (Supp. 1981) our court held that a natural parent was not even authorized to collect monies justly due a minor child absent his appointment as guardian. Wood v. Claiborne, 82 Ark. 514, 103 S.W. 219 (1907). Section 57-136, cited by appellee as authorizing settlement of claims for the minor, which amount to less than $1,000 per annum by a parent does not, in our opinion, dictate that conclusion. It merely provides that "any person under a duty to pay or deliver money or personal property to a minor" in amounts not to exceed $1,000 per annum may perform their duty by payment to the person having the care and custody of the minor for the use and benefit of the minor without the court being required to inquire into the applications of the proceeds.