Skip to content

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Matthews

The Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. J. W. Matthews

Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 23 S.W. 90 (Tex. App. 1893)

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided: June 22, 1893
Docket: No. 261.
Judges: Williams
Citations: 23 S.W. 903 Tex. Civ. App. 4931893 Tex. App. LEXIS 302

Cited by 7

Headnotes

Measure of Damages for Burning Grass.—The measure of damages is the value of the posts and grass destroyed and the injury caused to the value of the land by the destruction of the turf. Evidence of the value of the grass as hay, as well as for pasturage purposes, should be admitted for the consideration of the jury, and from a showing of all the purposes for which plaintiff’s grass was useful and valuable, the jury should determine what its value was at the time at which and state in which it stood when burned.

Summary

This is a suit instituted in the Justice Court for $194.50 for burning 32-| acres of grass, of the value of $150, 75 posts of the value of $4.50, and injury to the turf by burning of said 32-J- acres, $40. Defendant filed answer in the Justice Court, where the case was tried, and judgment was rendered for the appellee for $194.50. Appeal was perfected to the County Court, where the case was tried before a jury, and verdict was rendered for appellee for the sum of $194.50. Before the entry of judgment in the County Court, plaintiff in open court remitted the sum of $37 from the amount of the verdict, whereupon judgment was rendered for the appellee for the sum of $157.50 and all costs. The court charged the jury as follows: “If you find for the plaintiff, the measure of damages will be the difference between the value of the land alleged to have been injured immediately preceding the time of the burning and immediately after the time of burning, and you will so consider this matter from the evidence before you upon this trial.” Defendant was not permitted to prove the reasonable market value of grass land when used for hay or pasturage purposes.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

The court erred in the portion of the charge defining the measure of damages. The correct measure was not the difference in the value of the land caused by the burning of the grass, because that was temporary. Railway v. Horne, 69 Texas, 644 .

*494 The measure of damages is the value of the posts and of the grass-destroyed and the injury caused to the value of the land by the destruction of the turf.

Evidence of the value of the grass as hay as well as for pasturage purposes should be admitted for the consideration of the jury, and from a-showing of all the purposes for which plaintiff’s grass was useful and valuable, the jury should determine what its value was at the time at which and state in which it stood when burned. If the grass possessed a market value, that should be the criterion. But if, as is probable, there was no market value, considering it as useful for pasturage, its value when thus used should be taken.

Any evidence tending to show what the grass was worth when put to any of the uses for which it was valuable should be admitted.

Evidence as to any temporary diminution of the value of the land resulting from the burning of the grass should be excluded.

Reversed and remcmded.

Delivered June 22, 1893.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co. v. Ernst210 S.W. 603 (Tex. App. 1919)
Risse v. Collins87 P. 1006 (Idaho 1906)
Shell Pipe Line Corp. v. Svrcek37 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. App. 1931)
White River Sheep Co. v. Barkley288 P. 1029 (Ariz. 1930)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Brune181 S.W. 547 (Tex. App. 1915)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Harris216 S.W. 430 (Tex. App. 1919)

Most recent

Shell Pipe Line Corp. v. Svrcek37 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. App. 1931)
White River Sheep Co. v. Barkley288 P. 1029 (Ariz. 1930)
Bellamy v. Haag20 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. App. 1929)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Harris216 S.W. 430 (Tex. App. 1919)
San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co. v. Ernst210 S.W. 603 (Tex. App. 1919)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Brune181 S.W. 547 (Tex. App. 1915)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.