BROOKS
v.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's dismissal orders for both defendant railroads were correct and should be affirmed.
Plaintiff sued two railroad companies for lost freight. One railroad's motion to quash service was granted, and the other's motion to dismiss based on…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Quash Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charging each of them with separate and distinct wrongful acts, plaintiff sued thiree defendants, Edward H. Corrigan, dba the Corrigan Dispatch Company, a customs house broker at Laredo, Texas, and two carriers, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the Texas and Mexican Railroad Company, for damages for loss of a shipment of freight, household goods, and books, shipped by plaintiff, as consignor, at New York, to Mexico City, to himself, as consignee.
Summoned by service on one Adolph Prescott, as its passenger agent at Houston Texas, the Pennsylvania Railroad moved to quash the service and to dismiss the suit against it for want of jurisdiction over the defendant.
Heard on affidavits presented by the defendant, with no counter-proof offered by plaintiff, the motion to quash and dismiss was, on April 19, 1949, sustained, and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company was dismissed from the suit.
The Texas Mexican Railroad Company appeared, and, among other defenses, pleaded as res adjudicata the judgment in Civil Action 457, John R. Brooks v. The Texas Mexican Railway Co., et al., in the same court. On April 22, 1949, thie motion of the Texas Mexican Railroad Company to dismiss the complaint, on its plea of res adjudicata, was sustained, and it, too, was dismissed from the suit.
Within the time limited therefor, plaintiff gave notice of appeal from these orders, and the cause is here on his appeal.
A careful examination of the contentions of the appellant, in the light of the record and the briefs, discloses that they are without merit.
Because appellant has conducted his own case and appears for himself here, we have, in addition to considering the points he raises, subjected the record to a careful examination and consideration to determine-whether errors not pointed out by appellant may be found lurking in the record. We have found none.
The judgments are right. They are
Affirmed.