Dillingham v. Scales

• Decision Date: 17 October 1890
• Citation: 14 S.W. 566
• Parties: DILLINGHAM <I>et al.</I> v. SCALES <I>et ux.</I>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

14 S.W. 566

DILLINGHAM et al. v. SCALES et ux.

Supreme Court of Texas.

October 17, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Navarro county; SAM R. FROST, Judge.

Barry & Etheredge, for appellants. Simkins & Neblett, for appellees.

HENRY, J.

This suit was brought by appellees against appellants, as receivers of the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, to recover damages caused by the death of their son while employed as a fireman on one of their engines. The only errors insisted upon relate to the refusal of the court to grant defendants a new trial, on the grounds of language used by plaintiffs' attorney in his closing address to the jury, and that the verdict was excessive. At the time of the son's death, he was 24 years old. His father was then aged 57 and his mother 54 years. The son was industrious, and his habits were moral. He was earning from $60 to $65 per month. The father had but little property, and labored to support his family, consisting of some unmarried daughters, in addition to his wife. The evidence shows that the son was contributing from his wages from $150 to $250 yearly towards the support of the family, and that he had declared his purpose to continue to furnish aid. The verdict was for $7,000. It is shown by a bill of exceptions that, while plaintiffs' attorney was making his closing argument to the jury, he used substantially the following language: "Gentlemen, they talk about the corporation. What is the corporation? Go to New York city, and there view Huntington in his princely mansion, surrounded by all that wealth can give. There is the corporation. What does he care for this case? What does he care for the lives of these boys? There is only one thing to make him care, and that is a jury of twelve men of this county." To which language defendants' counsel then and there excepted, whereupon the attorney remarked to the jury: "Well, I withdraw what was said about Huntington and his mansion." It is well settled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover anything but the pecuniary value to them of the life of their son. On account of there being no exact method of estimating the amount of such damage provided by the law, we do not feel authorized to set aside every verdict that is for a greater amount than we would have given as an original question, or when we cannot account for it from the evidence, when the question has been properly submitted to the jury, but in all such cases there must be no ground to believe...