Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Rheiner
| Citation | 25 S.W. 971 |
| Parties | GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. RHEINER et al. |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1894 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Uvalde county court; J. E. Cummings, Judge.
Action by W. H. and Marietta Rheiner against the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Clark, Fuller & Garner, for appellant. Ellis & Archer, for appellees.
This is a suit instituted by appellees for damages alleged to have accrued by reason of the burning of grass on 371½ acres of land, and the destruction by fire of a certain fence, and cost of labor in repairing it.
The petition alleges that the damage was at the rate of 50 cents per acre, caused by the destruction of the grass. This was a sufficient allegation to admit proof, and the court did not err in overruling the exceptions. The measure of damages in this case would be the market value of the property destroyed, and there is an allegation that the grass on the land was worth 50 cents an acre, and this gave a sufficient basis for arriving at the damages.
It was not proper to charge for the repairing of the fence. To this item the exception should have been sustained; but as the jury found only for $182, and a verdict for that amount is amply sustained by the testimony of the value of the grass, it is an immaterial error. The same may be said as to all the assignments in connection with testimony to which objection was made.
The third, sixth, seventh, twelfth, twentieth, twenty-first, and other assignments are too general, and do not point out the specific errors relied on. Railway Co. v. Downie, 82 Tex. 383, 17 S. W. 620.
The testimony as to the value of the grass for grazing purposes was proper. The appellees were entitled to the highest market value of their property destroyed by the negligence of the railway company. Railway Co. v. Hogsett, 67 Tex. 686, 4 S. W. 365. This is not a case in which there is an allegation of any damage to the land, but the suit is brought for the value of grass and other property destroyed through the negligence of appellant.
We find no material error in the charge. Possession of the land was shown, and that was sufficient proof of title upon which to base a judgment against a mere trespasser. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. None of the assignments of error are meritorious. The judgment is affirmed.
On Rehearing.
Upon a careful review of the statement of facts and assignments of error, we are of the opinion that we should change our decision heretofore made in this case. Appellees sued for $221.80 damages, which it was alleged arose from grass being set on fire by sparks from the locomotives of appellant, by which grass of the value of $185.75, fence of the value of $13.56, and wood of the value of $16.50 were destroyed. There was also an item of $6 for repairing the damaged fence. The case was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellees in the sum of $182.54.
We are of the opinion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company v. Cook
-
Farmers Elevator & Grain Company v. Hines
... ... The authorities which we ... have found on the subject are to the contrary ... [ Dillingham v. Whitaker, 25 S.W. 723; Galveston ... Ry. Co. v. Rheiner, 25 S.W. 971; L. & N. Railroad ... Co. v. Miller, 109 Ala. 500, 19 So. 989; 33 Cyc. 1371, ... 1372; Davidson v. St ... ...
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Faisst
-
Galveston Theatres v. Larsen
...only on the ground that the prior accident was too remote in time and had no bearing on the instant case. Galveston H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Rheiner, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W. 971; Dillingham v. Whitaker et al., Tex.Civ. App., 25 S.W. 723; Galveston H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Ford, Tex.Civ.App., 46 S.W. ......