Cox v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 11 January 1905 |
| Citation | 85 S.W. 34 |
| Parties | COX et al. v. THOMPSON.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; N. R. Lindsey, Judge.
Action by W. B. Thompson against P. O. Cox and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
See 75 S. W. 819.
Dewey Langford and Orrick & Terrell, for appellants. Main & Chesley, for appellee.
This is a suit for the recovery of statutory penalties for breach of a liquor dealer's bond. P. O. Cox is the principal in the bond, and the other defendants are sureties. The petition charges that the defendant Cox breached the bond by permitting W. W. Thompson, a minor, to enter and remain in his saloon on three separate occasions. The jury found these allegations true, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the defendants have appealed. These findings are amply supported by testimony, and are not challenged in this court.
The first assignment of error complains of the action of the court authorizing a verdict for the plaintiff upon a preponderance of testimony; the contention being that, as this is a penalty suit, the plaintiff rested under the duty of establishing his case beyond a reasonable doubt. It has been repeatedly held in this state that in all civil cases the jury should decide according to the preponderance of the evidence. Sparks v. Dawson, 47 Tex. 145; Heiligmann v. Rose, 81 Tex. 222, 16 S. W. 931, 13 L. R. A. 272, 26 Am. St. Rep. 804; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 44 S. W. 936. It seems to us that the rule referred to is particularly applicable in this case, which is an action founded upon the breach of a written contract. The fact that the damages recoverable are fixed in amount by a statutory enactment, and are in fact a penalty, does not change the fact that the suit is based upon a written contract; and, such being the case, we see no reason why the plaintiff should be required to prove a breach of the contract by any higher degree of testimony than is required in any other suit founded upon a breach of contract.
The third, fourth, and sixth assignments assail the verdict upon the theory that there was no proof that P. O. Cox was a licensed retail liquor dealer, as alleged by the plaintiff. That objection was not urged against the verdict in the court below, and for that reason it cannot be urged here.
Several objections are urged against the charge of the court, none of which is regarded as tenable. The charge was quite full, and submitted the case to the jury in as favorable a manner to the defendants as they were entitled to have it submitted.
The point is made that P. O. Cox's application for license to do business designated two places. The application described the place of business as "at No. J. A. Gamble Building, in the town of Hico, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
...Heights R. R. Co., 85 App.Div. [N.Y.], p. 85, 82 N.Y.S. 1057, 178 N.Y. 623; International & G. N. R. Co. v. McVey [Tex.], 81 S.W. 991, 85 S.W. 34; Texas Loan Agency v. [Tex.] 46 S.W. 63; Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Davis [Tex.], 65 S.W. 217; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Shibell's Adm. [Ky.......
-
Cox v. State of Texas No 266 Cox v. Thompson No 267
...The motions were overruled, and an appeal was taken to the court of civil appeals. That court affirmed the judgments below (85 S. W. 1199; 85 S. W. 34), a motion for a rehearing was overruled, an application for a writ of error was refused by the supreme court of the state, and thereupon th......
-
Hammett v. State
...v. Proctor et al., 27 Ill. 414; Roberge v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 277; Robinson v. Schlitz, 135 Mo.App. 32, 115 S.W. 472; Cox v. Thompson, 37 Tex.Civ.App. 607, 85 S.W. 34; Enc. Ev. 751; 23 Cyc. 170; 17 Cyc. 761. In the case of People v. Briggs, supra, the court said: " 'There is no rule of law ......
-
Hammett v. State
...v. Proctor et al., 27 I11. 414; Roberge v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 277; Robinson v. Schiltz, 135 Mo. App. 32, 115 S.W. 472; Cox v. Thompson, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 607, 85 S.W. 34; 9 Enc. Ev. 751; 23 Cyc. 170; 17 Cyc. 761. ¶4 In the case of People v. Briggs, supra, the court said: "'There is no rule ......