Skip to main content
· 5/3/1881

Houston & T. C. R. R. Co. v. McKinney

Citations

  • 55 Tex. 176
  • 1881 Tex. LEXIS 102

Syllabus

<p>1. Principal and agent.— The agent of a railway company, acting under a general power to procure a right of way for the railroad, does not have, as connected with or incidental to such a power, the right to designate and locate for his principals the depots along the line of road; and his agreement to locate a' depot at a particular place, as a consideration for a deed to the company of a right of way, would not be binding on the company.</p> <p>2. Damages.—An incorporated company cannot be called on to answer in damages, in its corporate capacity, for the false and fraudulent representations of its agent, unless it authorized the representations.</p> <p>3. Deed—Principal and agent.—A deed to a railway company which recited that, “ in consideration of the enhanced value to be given and is contemplated to arise to my lands and other property by the location and building of the Houston & T. C. Bailway, and for the further consideration of one dollar,” and then proceeded to convey the right of way for the road over designated land, vested the right it purported to convey, notwithstanding fraudulent representations made outside the scope of his authority by the agent who received it. If the agent promised the location of a depotas apart consideration for the deed, parol evidence would not, in a suit against the company, be admitted to prove it, and the remedy of the grantor would be against the agent and not against the company for the deceit practiced.</p> <p>4. Distinguished.—This case distinguished from Henderson v. R. R. Co., 17 Tex., 560.</p> <p>5. Damages.— One who, by deed, grants a right of way over his land to a railway company, impliedly waives all right to damages not reserved in the deed, occasioned by the removal of timber or other obstructions situated in the line of the designated right of way.</p> <p>6. Measure of damages—Pleading.—See statement and opinion for a petition in a suit against a railway company for damages, on account of alleged fraudulen

Judges: App, Com, Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.