Badu v. Satterwhite
| Decision Date | 08 February 1910 |
| Parties | BADU v. SATTERWHITE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. W. Madden, for plaintiff in error.
In this case M. W. Satterwhite sued N. J. Badu and five others to recover $1,450 alleged to be his damage by reason of the destruction, by burning, of a certain house belonging to him and situated on his land. It was alleged that the burning of the house was caused by defendants, who were alleged to be trespassers and to have entered the house and built the fire without his consent. Defendant Badu answered by general demurrer, and by a special exception which was sustained, as to the claim for rents, and also pleaded the general issue. Upon a trial, with the assistance of a jury, there was a verdict for plaintiff against four of the defendants, including Badu, plaintiff having dismissed as to one of them, for $414.12, and from the judgment thereon this appeal is prosecuted by writ of error.
The facts are briefly as follows: On or about December 16, 1907, Newman, Wetzel, Hale, Forbes, and Badu started out from the town of Crockett to go some ten miles in the country to hunt birds. Badu, who was a visitor in the community, seems to have gone along, not to hunt, but to see Newman on some business he had with him. Near where they were to begin their shooting was the house which was burned, which belonged to Satterwhite. Arriving at or near this house the parties stopped, dismounted, and prepared for the hunt. Badu declined to hunt, and said he would stay at the house until the parties returned. As the weather was cool he went into the house, whether before or after all of the other parties left does not appear conclusively, and built a fire in the fireplace. The gate to the yard fence was down and the door to the house open, and there were signs that the house had been used by campers. After the parties had all left, Badu discovered that the house was on fire, and lacking any means to get on the roof, it was destroyed. The other parties hearing the alarm given by Badu came up before the house was entirely consumed, and tried to put out the fire, but were unable to do so. The fire built by Badu in the fireplace was the immediate cause of the destruction of the house. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict of the jury as to the amount of damages to the premises, occasioned by the destruction of the house, which was the measure of damages submitted to the jury. Appellant was present at the trial, was represented by counsel and was himself a witness in his own behalf. He made no motion for a new trial.
It is necessary that we first dispose of appellee's motion to strike out the statement of facts filed with the transcript. This motion is upon the ground that the paper so filed is a certified copy of the statement of facts, and not the original, as required by statute. It appears that Newman, one of the defendants, perfected an appeal from the judgment, and that the original statement, made up by all of the defendants, was filed with the transcript upon that appeal. The case was transferred to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth district and the original statement of facts was transmitted to that court. Upon the appeal, by writ of error, to this court by Wetzel, another of the defendants, there was a motion to strike out a certified copy of the statement of facts, as in this case. Upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michelsen v. Penney
...Newsom v. Meyer, 93 Conn. 93, 128 A. 699, 700; Keesecker v. G. M. McKelvey Co., 64 Ohio App. 29, 27 N.E. 787, 789, 790; Badu v. Satterwhite, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W. 929; Lee v. Stewart, 218 N.C. 287, 10 S.E.2d 804, 805; Cribbs v. Stiver, 181 Mich. 82, 147 N.W. 587; Restatement of Torts, § 6 ......
-
Michels v. Crouch
...refused; Carter v. Haynes, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W. 216, 219; Wetzel v. Satterwhite, 59 Tex.Civ.App. 1, 125 S. W. 93; Badu v. Satterwhite, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W. 929, 931; 1 Restatement, Torts, It is fundamental that a plaintiff must recover, if at all, upon the cause of action alleged. Gamma......
-
Reavis v. Taylor
...detailed are as logically recoverable as are damages resulting from having to move household goods during a rain. See Badu v. Satterwhite, Tex. Civ. App., 125 S.W. 929. Further, there is neither pleading nor testimony that the sheep depreciated in value from any other cause than as the natu......
-
Brown v. Dellinger
...support of the underlined portion of Section 10, supra, are Wetzel v. Satterwhite, 59 Tex.Civ.App. 1, 125 S.W. 93, and Badu v. Satterwhite, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W. 929. ...