Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Stokes
| Decision Date | 21 December 1905 |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. STOKES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Milam County Court; R. B. Pool, Judge.
Action by J. R. Stokes against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed in part.
J. W. Terry and A. H. Culwell, for appellant. Henderson & Locket, for appellee.
Appellee brought this suit against appellant to recover damages and penalties on account of appellant's permitting Johnson grass to mature and go to seed upon its right of way. There was a nonjury trial, resulting in a judgment against appellant for $50 as damages and $50 as penalties.
While the testimony was sufficient to show that appellant permitted Johnson grass to mature and go to seed upon its right of way contiguous to appellee's farm, it fails to show that appellant was guilty of negligence in that regard which would authorize a recovery at common law; and appellee is not entitled to recover otherwise than is authorized by the Johnson Grass statute enacted by the Twenty-Seventh Legislature (Laws 27th Leg. p. 283, c. 117). Appellee brought his case within the purview of that statute, and was entitled to recover the penalties awarded him.
The statute, by its terms, also authorizes a recovery of damages, but in that respect its constitutionality is assailed; the contention being that the subject of damages is not expressed in the caption of the bill, as required by our Constitution. The title of the statute is: "An act to prohibit railroad and railway companies or corporations in this state from permitting Johnson grass or Russian thistles from going to seed upon their right of way, and fixing a penalty." This does not include the subject of damages, and for that reason so much of the statute as authorizes a recovery of damages must be declared void (International & Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 89 S. W. 961, 14 Tex. Ct. Rep. 42), unless we adopt the theory, urged by counsel for appellee, that the Legislature intended the damages which might be recovered as part of the penalty; but that suggestion is regarded as untenable. We think the legislative purpose in authorizing the recovery of damages was to compensate the plaintiff, and not to punish the defendant.
Therefore the judgment will be reversed, and here rendered for appellee for $50 as penalties, and for appellant on the issue of damages.
Reversed and rendered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murrell v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company
... ... 131 Mo. 612; St. Louis v. Bray, 213 Mo. 131; ... Shively v. Lankford, 174 Mo. 545; State v ... Coffey Company, 171 Mo. 634; Gulf Ry. Co. v ... Stokes, 91 S.W. 328. (2) The speed ordinance of six ... miles an hour of Higginsville is unreasonable, ... unconstitutional and an ... ...
-
Ex Parte Flake
...(7th Ed.) pp. 89-91, and especially the notes; Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Loyd [Civ. App.] 132 S. W. 899; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Stokes [Civ. App.] 91 S. W. 328; Fornia v. Frazer 104 N. W. 147; Commonwealth v. Kebort 61 Atl. "This court must take one of the horns of the dilemma. The ca......
-
Doeppenschmidt v. International & G. N. R. Co.
...way, for the recovery of actual damages as well as the penalties prescribed by that act. Following the ruling of this court in Railway Co. v. Stokes, 91 S. W. 328, the court below evidently held that so much of the act as authorized a recovery for damages was unconstitutional, because not e......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Gentry
...act was not sufficiently broad to admit of legislation on damages. Railway Co. v. Burns (Tex. Sup.) 87 S. W. 1144; Railway Co. v. Stokes, 91 S. W. 328, 14 Tex. Ct. Rep. 356. Article 3, § 35, p. 78, Axtell's Const. 1876, contemplates that only the unconstitutional feature in a bill shall be ......