Baugh v. Texas & N. O. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1891 |
| Parties | BAUGH <I>et al.</I> v. TEXAS & N. O. R. Co. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Stewart & Stewart, for appellants. W. N. Shaw, for appellee.
Appellants brought this suit, as husband and wife, against the appellee, to recover damages, alleging that the husband was the owner of a certain lot in the city of Houston, along the street in front of which the defendant corporation was operating its line of railroad; that the lot was at the time of bringing the suit, and for a long time previous thereto had been, their homestead; and that by reason of the raising of the grade of the road in the front of their property, and the unlawful manner of operating the road and the trains, they had been damaged by a depreciation in its value. There were five separate and specific grounds of recovery set up in the petition, to all of which a demurrer was sustained except the first. Upon issues joined upon that ground the parties went to trial, and the defendant had a verdict and judgment in its favor. The rulings of the court in sustaining the demurrers to the second, third, and fifth grounds of action alleged in the petition are severally assigned as error. The second cause of action alleged is that, by the ordinance of the city of Houston, the defendant company is prohibited from running its trains within the city limits at a greater rate of speed than 6 miles per hour, but that the defendant, since the month of September, 1888, had run its trains along the street in front of plaintiffs' property at a rate of speed from 15 to 20 miles per hour; that thereby it was rendered unsafe for the plaintiffs and the other members of their family to cross the track in going to and from their home; and that by reason thereof their property had been rendered inaccessible, and had been depreciated in value in the sum of $250. The third cause of action alleged was that the city had made it the duty of the defendant to keep flagmen at certain crossings adjacent to plaintiffs' property; that this duty it had failed to perform; and that, by reason of its failure, cars, trains, and locomotives had been permitted to stand on said crossing an unreasonable time, thereby depreciating the value of plaintiffs' property in the sum of $250. The fifth ground of recovery alleged is that the defendant had caused trains, loaded with cattle, horses, and manure, to stop in front of plaintiffs' homestead "more than five minutes at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc. v. Bates
...671 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex.1984). 11. See Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Tex.1998). 12. See, e.g., Baugh v. Tex. & N.O. Ry. Co., 80 Tex. 56, 15 S.W. 587, 587-88 (1891); Austin & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 79 Tex. 427, 15 S.W. 484, 485 (1891). The same terms have been used for a diffe......
-
Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner
...damages as have accrued up to the institution of the suit or (under our system) to the trial of the action." Baugh v. Tex. & N.O.R. Co., 80 Tex. 56, 15 S.W. 587, 587–88 (1891). Such damages are calculated as loss of rental value, Schneider, 147 S.W.3d at 276, or use value, HARPER § 1.30, at......
-
Crosstex N. Tex. Pipleline, L.P. v. Gardiner
...such damages as have accrued up to the institution of the suit or (under our system) to the trial of the action." Baugh v. Tex. & N.O.R. Co., 15 S.W. 587, 587-88 (Tex. 1891). Such damages are calculated as loss of rental value, Schneider, 147 S.W.3d at 276, or use value, HARPER § 1.30, at 1......
-
Hanks v. City of Port Arthur
...Gainesville, Henrietta & Western Ry. Co. v. Hall, 78 Tex. 169, 14 S. W. 259, 9 L. R. A. 298, 22 Am. St. Rep. 42; Baugh v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., 80 Tex. 56, 15 S. W. 587; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Edrington, 100 Tex. 496, 101 S. W. 441, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 988; Ostrom v. City of San Antonio......