Houston & Tex. C. R. R. Co. v. Muldrow
| Decision Date | 28 January 1881 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1295. |
| Citation | 54 Tex. 233 |
| Parties | HOUSTON & TEXAS C. R. R. CO. v. JAS. H. MULDROW. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Grimes. Tried below before the Hon. W. D. Wood.
George Goldthwaite, for appellant.
Boone & Cobbs, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by appellee, Muldrow, as plaintiff below, against the Houston & Texas Central Railway Co., to recover the value of a certain jack which belonged to the plaintiff, and was alleged to have been killed by the locomotive and cars of the defendant.
That it was killed as alleged was admitted.
The jury under the charge of the court returned a verdict for plaintiff for $1,000, as the value of the property, and legal interest thereon from the date when killed to date of verdict, aggregating $1,046.66, for which judgment was rendered.
The only question presented for our consideration is this: Was the plaintiff entitled to interest as allowed, or should the verdict and judgment have been only for the value of the animal when killed?
Under our statute, interest, as such, is allowed before judgment only in cases of contract, express or implied. R. S., arts. 2972-2981.
Our statute on the subject of railroads provides that R. S., art. 4245; Pasch. Dig., art. 4921.
This statute in express terms makes the value of “the stock killed or injured” the measure of damages allowed the owner, and to this the verdict and judgment should have been restricted.
The decision in this case is based upon the construction given to the particular phraseology of the statute, and is not intended to conflict with those decisions, by which, in some cases, interest in the discretion of the jury is allowed in the nature of damages, or those in which it is ordinarily allowed in actions of tort, as trespass for the taking and conversion of goods. 2 Sedg. on Damages (7th ed.), 90.
If the interest is remitted the judgment will be reversed and reformed at cost of the appellee in and about this appeal expended, otherwise it will be reversed and remanded. Cloud v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Eckhardt
...to interest and attorney's fees, and interest as damages for detention of amount due by the surety was not discussed. In Railway v. Muldrow, 54 Tex. 233, it was held, Associate Justice Bonner writing in 1881, that interest prior to judgment was not allowable under the statute (Rev. St. 1879......
-
New York, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Zumbaugh
...damages allowed the owner, and that interest thereon from the date when killed to the date of the verdict cannot be recovered. Railroad Co. v. Muldrow, 54 Tex. 233. In action for damages growing out of negligence a different rule prevails in that state. In one case the court says: “It now s......
-
Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Jones
...of the judgment. We are of opinion that the court did not err in this particular. We are aware that in one case, to wit, Railroad Co. v. Muldrow, 54 Tex. 233, our supreme court took a different view, which case has been followed by two of the courts of civil appeals in this state. Railway C......
-
Payne v. Wittenberg
...it is provided that railroad companies shall be liable to the owner of stock killed for the value thereof; and in the cases of Ry. Co. v. Muldrow, 54 Tex. 233, and Ry. Co. v. Chambliss, 93 Tex. 62, 53 S. W. 343, both decided by our Supreme Court, it was held that the measure of damages pres......