Enlow v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 10 June 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,201 |
| Citation | 81 P. 189,71 Kan. 633 |
| Parties | A. ENLOW v. MILEY HAWKINS |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1905.
Error from Edwards district court; CHARLES E. LOBDELL, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. DAMAGES--Tortious Conduct. One who commits a tortious act is liable for the injury and loss that are the natural and probable result of his wrongful act.
2. DAMAGES--Liability for Direct and Immediate Consequences. Where shocked corn is purchased to be fed to a herd of cattle, and it is subsequently wrongfully destroyed by the vendor at a time when feed of that character cannot be obtained in that section of the country, the wrong-doer is liable, not only for the property destroyed, but also for the direct and immediate consequences of the wrongful destruction of the corn.
3. EVIDENCE--Expert Testimony. It appearing that those accustomed to feeding and handling cattle can estimate with reasonable certainty the injury and shrinkage in weight sustained by cattle on account of changing the feed given them from the shocked corn to straw, cane, and like fodder, such testimony was properly considered in measuring the damages caused by the wrong-doer.
W. N. Beezley, and D. A. Banta, for plaintiff in error.
F. Dumont Smith, and A. C. Dyer, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action by Miley Hawkins to recover from A. Enlow $ 3000 as damages for the malicious destruction of corn. In his petition Hawkins alleged that in September, 1902, he purchased seventy-five acres of standing corn from Enlow and another, to be cut and shocked upon the land where it was grown, there to remain as late as April 15, 1903. It was purchased by Hawkins for the purpose of winter-feeding 500 head of cattle that he owned, and Enlow knew the purpose for which the purchase was made. Hawkins cut and shocked the corn, which was of the value of $ 1000, and it was standing on the land on March 3, 1903, when Enlow wilfully and maliciously tore down the shocks, threw them into the road, and totally destroyed them, thus occasioning a loss of $ 1000. It was further alleged that by reason of the destruction of the corn the plaintiff was unable to continue the feeding of his cattle, and as a result thereof, and of the change of feed, the cattle shrank greatly in weight, and were depreciated in value, by which he sustained a loss of $ 2000. Enlow admitted the purchase of the corn but denied the other averments, especially that there was an agreement that the corn might stand on the land for the period stated by Hawkins, and he also alleged that Hawkins had caused him loss by the manner in which he had used the land on which the corn was shocked. At the trial the jury awarded Hawkins damages in the sum of $ 400, and, in answer to special questions, stated that $ 165 of that amount was damages for the corn destroyed, and that $ 235 was allowed as shrinkage of the cattle.
The record does not show that it contains all of the evidence received or the instructions given by the court, and hence some of the questions discussed are not open for consideration. Sufficient is included, however, to raise the question whether the shrinkage and loss of growth in the cattle, resulting from the wrongful destruction of the feed purchased for them, are proximate and furnish a basis for recovery. According to the averments of the petition the basis of the action was more than a violation of contract--it was a malicious tort; and in such actions the wrongdoer is liable for the direct and immediate consequences of his wrongful act.
It appears that the shocked corn was of good quality, and that such feed could not be obtained in that region of the country in that season of the year. Straw and other fodder were found and substituted for the shocked corn that was destroyed, but the cattle did not relish the change of feed, and the result was a stunting of the growth and a shrinkage of weight. Witnesses who were in the cattle business stated that the shrinkage and loss occasioned by such a change of feed could be fairly well measured by those accustomed to feeding cattle, and they undertook to state the extent of the injury and loss to the Hawkins cattle. The testimony was competent, and the damages sustained by the wrong of Enlow were recoverable. The loss was the direct and immediate consequence of his tortious act, and one that could have been reasonably anticipated. The case of Hoge v Norton, 22 Kan. 374, has characteristics of its own, but the governing principle there applies here. In that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. The North Dakota State Fair Association for Grand Forks
... ... Pasteur-Chamberland Filter Co., 82 Ill.App. 94; ... Wells v. National Life Asso. 53 L.R.A. 33, 39 C. C ... A. 476, 99 F. 222; Enlow" v. Hawkins, 71 Kan. 633, 81 ... P. 189; Fredonia Gas Co. v. Bailey, 77 Kan. 296, 94 ... P. 258; Brown v. Hadley, 43 Kan. 267, 23 P. 492 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Rexroad v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
...liable for the injury and loss that are the natural and probable result of his wrongful act. (Hoge v. Norton, 22 Kan. 374; Enlow v. Hawkins, 71 Kan. 633, 81 P. 189; Bank v. Robbins, 71 Kan. 748, 81 P. 487, 114 Am.St.Rep. 523; Billups v. American Surety Co., 173 Kan. 646, 251 P.2d 237; Foste......
-
Outcault Advertising Company v. The Citizens National Bank
...Hadley, 43 Kan. 267, 23 P. 492; Town Co. v. Lincoln, 56 Kan. 145, 42 P. 706; Gas Co. v. Glass Co., 56 Kan. 614, 44 P. 621; Enlow v. Hawkins, 71 Kan. 633, 81 P. 189; McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 149 Cal. 60, P. 929; Hinckley v. Pittsburgh Steel Co., 121 U.S. 264, 30 L.Ed. 967, 7 S.Ct.......
-
Chicago. R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Word
...damage foreseen. Buffalo B. S. C. Co. v. Milby, 63 Tex. 492, 51 Am. Rep. 668, and authorities cited, supra. The case of Enlow v. Hawkins, 71 Kan. 633, 81 Pac. 189, was one in which Hawkins sued Enlow for the shrinkage of cattle and consequent damages occasioned by the destruction of certain......