Southern Ry. Co. v. Brantley

• Decision Date: 19 June 1902
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. BRANTLEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

32 So. 300

132 Ala. 655

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. BRANTLEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 19, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Hall county; John Moore, Judge.

Action by John Brantley against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action brought by the appellee against the appellant the Southern Railway Company, to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of a horse, the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf testified that he had purchased the horse killed from a Mr Grubbs, and that the value of the horse was $100. Upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant, he was asked the following questions: "What did you pay for the mare? Was there any difference in the value of the mare at the time she was killed and her value at the time you bought her? How many horses did Mr. Grubb have for sale at the time that you bought the mare? Did he have any horses, except the one you bought? What was the value of the roan horse?" The plaintiff separately objected to each of these questions the court sustained each of the objections as interposed, and to each of these rulings the defendant separately excepted. A. N. Grubbs was introduced as a witness for the plaintiff, and testified that the plaintiff got the horse which was killed from him; that the plaintiff traded him a roan horse for the one which was killed; that the horse which he traded to the plaintiff was worth $100. On the cross-examination of this witness, he was asked by the defendant the following questions: "What did you price the mare at in Eutaw?" "At what did you value the roan horse for which you traded?" "Was the roan horse worth as much in the market as the mare?" "Was there any difference in the market value of the roan horse and the market value of the mare, and, if so, what?" "Did you consider the market value of the roan horse as much as that of the mare?" The plaintiff separately objected to each of these questions, the court sustained each of such objections, and to each of these rulings the defendant separately excepted. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $92.14. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the rulings of the court upon the evidence.

F. L. Pettus and A. M. Tunstall, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, for appellee.

SHARPE J.

On the subject of recoverable damages the...