Caddo Gas Co. v. Jeffries

CONNER, O. J. The appellees Ottie Jef-fries and her husband, B. J. Jeffries, filed this suit complaining of the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company and the Caddo Gas Company, a partnership composed of A. S. York, C. L. Young, and Bert' Miller, and M. E. Stephens, trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of C. L. Young, in the district court of Stephens county. Appellees alleged that on or about October 17, 1920, they were the owners of a dwelling situated in the town of Caddo, Stephens county, Tex., which had prior thereto been piped in a proper and careful manner to the Caddo Gas Company’s gas line for the purpose of furnishing said dwelling with gas fo'r fuel, heating, and co.oking purposes; that the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company was furnishing the gas used by the citizens of Cad-do to the Caddo Gas Company, or to the users thereof, and were so furnishing the same on or about October 17, 1920; that on or about that date the gas pressure became too low to, furnish sufficient fuel for heating and cooking, and the Jeffries were using wood in its stead; that on or about said date the “Caddo Gas Company or the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company, or the Caddo Gas Company or some of their agents, employees, or representatives” turned into the gas mains in Caddo a gas pressure of such force that it blew off, bursted, and broke the connections, stops, cut-offs, and pipes in plaintiffs’ residence; that as a result thereof, plaintiffs’ dwelling was set on fire and completely destroyed ; that the defendants were guilty of negligence in the particular’s above mentioned, which was the causé of the damage to plaintiffs; that the dwelling of plaintiffs was of the value of $7,000, the kitchen furniture of the value of $3,000, the wearing apparel and money $2,000, making a total value of $12,000, for which appellees sought recovery. The appellant, Texas Pacific Coal &, Oil Company, answered by way of a general demurrer, special demurrer, general denial, and plea of not guilty. The demurrers were overruled, and the trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in appellees’ favor for the sum of $11,500. The judgment was rendered jointly and severally against the Caddo Gas Company, A. S. York, Bert Miller, and the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company for said amount. The defendants C. L. Young and M. E. Stephens, trustee, were dismissed with their costs. The appellant, Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company, alone has prosecuted an appeal. The principal complaints, presented in various forms, are of the court’s action in overruling the appellant’s general and special demurrers, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the judgment. The demurrers are to the effect that the petition does not unconditionally allege the appellant to be guilty of the wrongs complained of, and does not allege the defendants to be joint tort-feasors. The basis of the complaint of the petition seems to rest upon the allegation hereinbefore quoted that the “Caddo Gas Company or the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company, or the Caddo Gas Company or some of their agents, employees, or representatives,” turned into the [110] gas mains the, alleged excessive pressure of gas.- It is quite true that an allegation that one or the other of the defendants committed an act which resulted in the damage complained of is insufficient in that it cannot be said therefrom which of the two defendants is the guilty party; -in other words, the allegation standing alone leaves it uncertain that the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company was guilty of the-wrongs complained of, whereas the allegation should he unconditionally certain. See Oglesby’s Sureties v. State, 73 Tex. 658, 11 S. W. 873; Thorndale Mercantile Cas Co. v. Evans & Lee (Tex. Civ. App.) 146 S. W. 1053; Snipes v. Bomar Cotton, Oil. Co., 106 Tex. 181, 161 S. W. 1; Baker v. Galbreath (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. 626, So that, if the quoted allegdtion was all that was to be found in the petition,->ve would feel n.o hesitation in saying .that .the demurrers should have been sustained. But the. rule is well settled that, in passing upon the sufficiency of-a petition as against a -general demurrer, tlie petition must be considered as' a. whole. , In other words,, all of, its parts and .allegations and not. an. isolated portion must be considered. And so. considering the petition'before us, we fail.,to..find reversible error,ij),'the,-action of the. court .in .overruling appellant’s demurrers. . . , . ’ . ,We .will not. quote extensively - from- the petition, but in some parts thereof the defendants, .were distinctly charged as joint Wrongdoers. For instance, it was 'alleged' that”: : “The defendants noF none of them gave plaintiffs- any. notice' that said high pressure" would be and was going-.to he turned into said mains and laterals, .„ * * * That said gas pressure was so great gnd severe.that.many of the gas .pipes in tbe.town of Caddo, especially those lying on top of the ground, walked, crawled or moved from the usual place, and that the defendants, each, and all of' them, well knew, or if they had used ordinary prudence and diligence of. an ¡ordinary- prudent -person, -would, have known, that .said .gas pressure was too strong and great for the pipes' and plumbing and fixtures for gas'purposes of' those used by plaintiff and other ’ citizens using gas in the town - of Caddo", and if the defendants, each, either, or all ■of them, had used ordinary and proper care they -would and could have prevented said high pressure being turned into the mains and pipes, including ¡those in plaintiffs’ residence,- and thereby prevented the loss, destruction of plaintiffs’ residence, * * * at least they could have -notified plaintiffs 'that said high pressure was going to be turned into said mains and pipes and in plaintiffs’’ residence, which they did not, do, so that plaintiffs' could- have used care to prevent said fire. That if the defendants had used .proper care and diligence, as an ordinary prudent person would have done, they could and should have secured, obtained, and used proper appliances to prevent such high pressure coming dif'ect from gas wells from entering the mains and pipes entering plaintiffs’ residence.’’', It was further alleged: “That the building of plaintiffs that was destroyed by fire on account of the carelessness and'negligence of the defendants was worth at the time'of such destruction * * * $-12,000; that the sum of $12,000 would not replace said building, furniture, fixtures, and clothing and money that was lost and'destroyed in said fire, caused by the negligence, wanton, willful, and unskillful management of the defendants, their employees and representatives or agents in turning in said high gas pressure which was the approximate and immediate eause of said fire.” These allegations, and perhaps others of similar import, we think are reasonably sufficient to show, notwithstanding the indefinite character of the isolated portion first quoted, that the appellant company and other defendants were each and all distinctly, jointly, and severally charged with the commission of the negligent acts complained of. (The assignments and propositions relating to this subject are accordingly overruled. In answer to special issues, the jury found that on or about .the date alleged in the plaintiffs’ 'petition the Caddo Gas Company turned into its lines an undue excess of natural gas, and was guilty of negligence in so turning in .the gas or permitting' it to be turned in, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury complained of by plaintiffs. The jury also found that the appellant, the Texas Pacific'Coal & Oil Company, on or about said time, turned in or caused to be turned into its lines “and into the lines, of the Caddo Gas Company” an undue excess of natural gas, and that in so turning into or permitting such excess of gas into its lines or • the lines of the Caddo Gas Company it was guilty of negligence, which was the proximate cause of the injury complained of by the plaintiffs. In answer to specially requested issues by.the Caddo Gas Company, the jury further found that the pipe connections or cut-bffs in plaintiffs’ dwelling were blown off or bursted, on November 17, 1920, by the gas pressure in the Caddo Gas, Company’s line's; that neither the Caddo Gas Company nor any one else other than the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company opened the regulator of the Caddo Gas Company so that the same permitted an excessive gas pressure in the lines of the Caddo Gas Company; that the plumbing in the- house of plaintiffs at the time the same was destroyed by fire was not defective. The' appellant, Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company also .requested a number of special ■issues which were given by the court and answered. These relate generally to the quantity and value of the goods destroyed by the fire, about which' no question is raised, and which, therefore, need not be.here specified: Among other questions, however, was one directing the .jury to find for the appellant conjpdny, which was refused, and to which [111] exception is taken because it is insisted that the evidence did not warrant a judgment against this company. We have carefully examined tbe statement of facts, and conclude that the evidence fully warrants and supports the verdict and judgment. The evidence is abundant to the effect that on the date alleged the plaintiffs’ house and its contents was destroyed by fire, and that for several weeks before the fire the gas pressure in the Caddo Gas Company’s lines was low, to such an extent as that the inhabitants, many of them, were compelled to use wood and other fuel to supply their fires, but that on the occasion in question the gas lines of the Caddo Gas Company were so flooded with gas, of a pressure which in places bursted the lines, blew off attachments to gas stoves, etc., and the evidence shows that on the day of the fire appellees were not using gas but had a wood fire in the kitchen, which was left burning during a temporary absence of Mrs. Jeffries. Soon after Mrs. Jeffries’ departure from the house, on a mission not necessary to state, the fire was discovered, and within a few moments Mrs. Jeffries returned, and she testified that: “When I reached the house the whole end of the kitchen was blown out and burned, and the ■dining room was burning when I got there.” Another witness testified that he passed the house shortly before the fire and discovered nothing unusual with the premises, but that •upon the alarm of the fire he repaired to the premises and found that one of the pipes which fed the house with gas, and only a ■short distance away, had bursted and was .aflame. We think the jury was warranted in drawing the inference, as they evidently did, that the excessive pressure either burst-ed the gas pipes in the kitchen of plaintiffs ■or blew off the petcocks- on their gas stove, as happened in other parts of town, and thus permitted gas to escape in the kitchen and become ignited from the wood fire, with the consequent loss of the house and contents. As it seems to us, the only reasonably debatable question is whether the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company was guilty of negligence in turning into the gas lines of the Caddo Gas Company, or permitting the same to be ■done, an excessive pressure, of gas. As already indicated, the jury has found that it was guilty of negligence in this respect, and, if so, it undoubtedly was the proximate re-suit of the fire and loss in question. C. E. Hampton testified: That he remembered the occasion of the burning of the Jeffries house. That he had worked for the Caddo Gas Company -three •or four 'different times; both before and after the fire. That the Caddo Gas Company got its gas from the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil ■Company." That the'lines of the two companies connected about one-fourth of a mile east of the town on top of a hill. That: “They had a house over there, over a meter and had cut-offs and had a by-pass on- it. I suppose the T. P. had charge and control of that house. It had their stuff in it. I had no access to the house myself. There was a' wooden house, and I guess it was 6x8 feet, or 8x10. The T. P.’s pipe came into that house. It was either a 4 or 6 inch pipe, I do not remember: It was a large pipe. When I say T. & P. Company I mean Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company. I do not know where the gas came from. The line came in north and south by there, and this branch connected • onto it. I don’t know where or what wells it come from. There was nothing on that line before it reached the house. Inside that house was a meter, a gas meter, and it come from the east side and come out on the west side, and there was a gas meter in there and two or three big globe valves or gate valves, and then a by-pass'around this meter. A gate valve has a gate in it to let the pressure in and out. Those valves do not regulate the pressure or amount of gas that would pass through, but you had to open the valves to get the pressure of the gas to the meter. The amount that these valves opened or closed has something to do with the pressure. Close them, the pressure would be cut off. Thdy' could be opened a little. If the gas was consumed on the other end of the line, it would not back’ up' and form a pressure, but if it was wide open it would soon fill the lines up in town. The gas was being used in town from said line and sometimes the use was heavier than at others. If the glove valves were opened, say one-half'or one-fourth or entirely, that would have an' effect upon the pressure that went out through the lines. The Texas Pacific Coal & Oil-Company had charge of those glove valve's: * * * I have had quite a bit óf experience' with this kind of valves. I judge more gas would pass through the valve when you have it fully open. It is my opinion based upon my experience. The Caddo Gas Company’s line began just outside of the house. They owned the pipe from the meter on out over the town; that is, they owned the pipe on the west side of the house after it had passed through the house. There was a regulator on the outside up against' the house. What I , mean by regulator is that it was to regulate the pressure for the gas over' town. It was a 2-inch regulator, a 2-inch pipe in it and out of it, or 2-ineh out of it; I don’t remember what size come into it. There was a way you could set the regulator so as to let a certain pressure through it by putting weights-on it and weighting it down so more presssure would come through. You could cut it all the way off. You take the weights off, and it was supposed tp balance there and work. But it was not. working very good all the time. It was not in very good shape. We would have to load it down with rocks and pipe fittings to keep it open. , A certain weight would let' so much gas through. That regulator would regulate a very high pressure that was turned into the line. Part of the time it would work, and part of the time it would hot. “I suppose it was a week or something like, that before the fire when I last had occasion to do anything with the regulator. As well as I'remember'it was about that time. I was not' [112] employed by the company at the time of the fire. * * * I was running the shop up at town, and the regulator would not work. It had got froze up, and they built a fire under it. About a week before the fire I went over with a fellow from the gas company to see what was the' matter with it. I had been well acquainted with it, and so he asked me to go over, and they had built a fire under it and it had burnt the guage up, and so we took it off and brought it to my shop, and the spring was burnt up, and I had a guage in my shop, and I let Mr. Stephens have that guage, and he took it over and put it on. The guage was a pressure guage to sho.w the amount of pounds going into it. The guage was working properly when I left it. The next time I saw it he ordered ope or bought one some time, and he brought mine back to the shop to me. That was after the fire. This guage I let him have come off of an acetylene welding plant — a high pressure guage. It was a guage that would.show up to 2,500 pounds. It would register a low pressure anywhere about 50 pounds. I don’t think it an accurate guage for that machine. It would register as much as come on it, up to 2,500 pounds. It would just register the amount of gas in the line, or going through the line up to the numbers on the guage — I think it was 2,500 pounds. * * * They could get through-the lines at Caddo as much as they had in the other line. The regulator was supposed to regulate the gas, but it did not work, and we always kept it wide open to get as much as we could through the line. It was customarily done that way with the old regulator. I know what had been the condition of the gas pressure for a period of several days just before the house burned up there in Caddo. Well ..we hadn’t had any; most of us were burning wood. They .got a little bit down in. town, but, out in the -residence part of town they couldn’t get any. Most every one was burning wood. * * * Immediately after the fire, well we had lots of pressure the day of the fire, I know that. I didn’t notice it until after the fire. Before the fire we had practically no gas at all down at my place, and after the fire we had all we wanted of it. Plenty of it in the lines. * * * After the fire the main" gas line along the street near the Jeffries house was bursted. It burnt there for a good long while after the fire. It was not far from her house. I don’t know whether it bursted before or after the fire. I had not known of it before. I passed her house I guess 15 or 20 minutes before it burned — something like that. ' I did not notice the gas pipe bursted at that time. I believe I would have noticed it if it had been there at the time.” G. L. Taylor, testifying in behalf of the defendant, said that he had charge of everything connected with the transporting of gas from one part of the field to another for the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company, and that he knew of the danger of permitting high pressure gas to go into the lines of the Caddo Gas Company. On this point he said: “I knew it was necessary to have a regulator in there in order to protect the people against the excess pressure. As to whether or not, at the time we made the contract with the Caddo Gas Company, we required them to install a regulator, well, they had their regulator already, We required them to keep and use it. I knew gas was dangerous. We didn’t pay any attention to the regulator after it was installed. We told them it would be necessary for them to regulate the gas. We told them it was their duty to do so. We knew it was necessary to regulate the gas. If they wanted to buy the gas it was nothing to us whether they sold high pressure gas or low pressure gas.” There is much other evidence thát should possibly be quoted, but to do so would unduly extend this opinion. We will say in a general way that, in substance, we think the evidence shows that the fact that there was little or no pressure in the lines of the Caddo Gas Company was well known, not only to the managers of the latter company, but also through numerous complaints and otherwise to the agents and employees of the appellant company. It also tends to show and authorize the conclusion that the agents and employees of the appellant company well knew that an undue pressure of gas was dangerous and might cause damage such as shown in this case, and that the register of the Caddo Gas Company was weighted down so as to admit all of the gas furnished by the appellant company. The appellant company also had globe valves and other valves that, according to testimony of witness' Hampton, at least in a measure controlled the gas pressure, and, while the appellant company was not the retailer, it was the wholesaler, and the two companies were acting interdependently, and we think that, when the extraordinary pressure of gas was turned into the lines of the appellant company, reasonable care on its part, under the-circumstances, required it to see that its valves and the register of the Caddo Gas Company were properly adjusted so as not to cause damage of the character shown in this case. And we think the jury were authorized, under the evidence, in saying that the company was negligent in a failure to exercise such care. It is true that the appellant company offered testimony tending to show that it had not turned in any extraordinary amount of gas; charts were introduced purporting to show that there had been no unusual pressure of gas in the pipe lines of the appellant company, but the undeniable fact seems to be that an extraordinary pressure- in fact was turned into the pipe lines of the appellant company and from thence through the unobstructed valves into the pipe lines of the Caddo Gas Company, with knowledge, as there is evidence tending to show, not only that an excessive pressure would be dangerous, but also that the valves, and register of’the Caddo Gas Company were ' open. And we think the jury were the judges of whether they should' credit the charts and witnesses who produced them. There p was evidence tending to show that at or113 about this time, after numerous complaints had been received by the officers and agents of the appellant company, the gas from an additional well — the Yeale well — was turned' into its lines. The appellant’s testimony tended to show that this was done after the fire, but the evidence to this effect on their part, even if credited by the jury, does not seem to be conclusive, and, as before indicated, the evidence as a whole seems conclusively to show that from some source an additional and excessive volume of gas was turned into the lines of the appellant company and flowed thence into the lines of the Caddo Gas Company, for there is no evidence whatever to the effect that the Caddo Gas Company received gas for its use among the citizens of Caddo from any other company or source. On the whole, we conclude that all assignments of error should be overruled and the judgment affirmed.