House v. Soder

Citations

• 36 Tex. 629

Syllabus

<p>1. In 1863, so far as this court is apprised, there was no law or public policy of the United States, and no proclamation of the President of the United States, prohibiting the hauling of cotton from one portion of Texas to another, nor interdicting one citizen of the State from contracting to do such hauling for another ; and it is immaterial that the destination of the cotton was the port of Brownsville, on the Rio Grande.</p> <p>2. If, in 1863, the owner of cotton, intending to evade the blockade and revenue laws of the United States, forwarded it to Brownsville by a common carrier, and it was there taken from the carrier by the authorities of the United States, the fraudulent intent of the owner, and the consequent loss of his cotton, cannot exonerate him from the carrier’s claim for freight money.</p> <p>3. In 1863, S., under contract with H., hauled the latter’s cotton from Alley-ton, Texas, to Brownsville, Texas, but on arriving at Brownsville was unable to find the consignee of H., and the cotton was taken from him by the authorities of the United States. Suit for his freight-money being brought by S. against H., the latter pleaded illegality of their contract^ and also reconvened for the value of the cotton on the ground of the liability of S. as a common carrier. Held, that the contract was not illegal so far as S. was concerned. And held further, that even treating S. as a common carrier, his responsibility as such ceased,and his freight-money became due, when he arrived at the place of consignment and could find no consignee there. Thenceforth his liability could be no greater than that of a bailee, bound for only ordinary care and diligence ; and his failure to deliver the cotton was iriiputable, not to him, but to the owner, who therefore is still liable for the freight-money, and has no claim against S. for the value of the cotton.</p>