Ethridge v. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1897 |
| Citation | 39 S.W. 204 |
| Parties | ETHRIDGE v. SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Caldwell county court; George W. Kyser, Judge.
Action by A. S. Ethridge against the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company. From a judgment of the county court in favor of defendant, rendered on its appeal from a decision in favor of plaintiff in justice court, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
This action was brought by appellant in the justice's court of precinct No. 2 of Caldwell county, against appellee, for $156.25, damages to plaintiff's crop of 25 acres of corn ($6.25 per acre), alleged to have been caused by the negligent construction of defendant's roadbed, causing overflow of the crop between May 15 and July 1, 1895. Defendant answered by general and special exceptions to the claim as stated, general denial, and specially that its roadbed was skillfully constructed, and that it in no manner contributed to the alleged damages. The case was tried in the justice's court, and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $125, from which an appeal was taken to the county court, where, at the February term, 1896, the case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for the defendant, from which an appeal was taken to this court. On the trial in the county court the plaintiff offered to prove by his own testimony that seven tiers of piling in the bed of West Fork creek obstructed the natural flow of the water in the creek, and caused it to back up and overflow his farm, to which defendant objected, because plaintiff had not shown that he was an expert in determining the proper building of bridges, roadbeds, and culverts, which objection was sustained by the court; plaintiff reserving an exception, upon the ground that the witness had known the stream for 26 years, had seen it up from excessive rains, and knew from observation what had obstructed or would obstruct the natural flow of the water in the creek. Plaintiff also offered to prove by his own testimony that the roadbed from the north bank of West Fork creek to about 1,300 yards north of the creek (plaintiff's farm being on the north of the creek) obstructed the natural flow of the surface water flowing into the creek, and caused it to run down and submerge plaintiff's crop. This testimony was also objected to by defendant, because plaintiff had not shown himself to be an expert, and because it was the opinion of the witness. The court sustained the exception, plaintiff reserving an exception to the ruling, upon the ground that the witness was not required to be an expert, he having shown that he knew the country around the place, knew the natural drainage, knew the place both before and after the roadbed was built, and saw the water when accumulated above the roadbed.
P. J. Greenwood and Harris & Son, for appellant. A. B. Storey, for appellee.
COLLARD, J. (after stating the facts).
These rulings of the court are assigned as error, and we are of opinion that the assignments are well taken. The plaintiff's testimony, besides what is shown in the bills of exception, showed that he had a crop of corn, as alleged, in May and June, 1895, and that the water backed up from the roadbed, and almost destroyed his crop, about 25 or 30 acres of it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grace v. Union Electric Co.
...etc., R. Co., 159 Ia. 666, 141 N.W. 49; Porter v. Pequonnoc Mfg. Co., 17 Conn. 249; Ry. Co. v. Haskell (Tex.), 23 S.W. 546; Etheridge v. Ry. Co. (Tex.), 39 S.W. 204; City of Austin v. Howard (Tex.), 158 S.W. (2d) 556; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Kiel (Tex.), 185 S.W. (2d) 144; Noe v. C., B. ......
-
Kennedy v. Union Elec. Co. of Mo.
... ... Daniels, ... 9 Tex. Civ. App. 253, 28 S.W. 548; Gulf, etc., R. Co., v ... Richards, 83 Tex. 203, 18 S.W. 611; Taylor v. San ... Antonio R. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 658, 83 S.W. 738; ... S.W. Portland Cement Co. v. Kezer, 174 S.W. 661; ... Hartford Co. Comrs. v. Wise, 71 Md. 43, ... Co., 159 Iowa 666, 141 ... N.W. 49; Porter v. Pequonnoc Mfg. Co., 17 Conn. 249; ... Ry. Co. v. Haskell, 23 S.W. 546; Ethridge v. Ry ... Co., 39 S.W. 204; City of Austin v. Howard, 158 ... S.W.2d 556; Ft. Worth, etc., R.C. v. Kiel, 185 ... S.W.2d 144; Noe v. C., B ... ...
-
Grace v. Union Elec. Co.
...etc., R. Co., 159 Ia. 666, 141 N.W. 49; Porter v. Pequonnoc Mfg. Co., 17 Conn. 249; Ry. Co. v. Haskell (Tex.), 23 S.W. 546; Etheridge v. Ry. Co. (Tex.), 39 S.W. 204; of Austin v. Howard (Tex.), 158 S.W.2d 556; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Kiel (Tex.), 185 S.W.2d 144; Noe v. C., B. and Q. R. C......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Saunders
...on the measure of damages. 56 Ark. 612. See also for rule as to measure of damages: 11 S.W. 526; 25 S.W. 54; 23 S.W. 546; 7 S.W. 353; 39 S.W. 204. In arriving at the measure damages, great liberality in making proof is allowed, and even the opinion of a witness qualified by experience is ad......