The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-09
COURT DECISIONS.
.synos,is Of Opinions Of the supreme Coz

;synos,is Of Opinions Of the Supreme Court
City of Fort Worth VS.. Davis ct al; from
Tarrant county. This suit was to enJom
the collection of special school tax, when,
under an election in 1877, assuming control
Of the public schools, was levied by SUD-
sequent vote lin 1880 on the proposition
.whether or not the city council of the city
of Fort Worth, should be empowered to
levy tax of one fourth of one per cent. for
the support of public--free schools" The
constitlitionality of articles 37S5, 1886
and 1881. being attacked, were prop
erly upheld in the court below.
nut the statutory question, which
should have been submitted was, shall
such an amount be raised by taxation not
exceed one half of one per cent; IN add
ton TO the pro rata Of the school iund re-
ceived from the state, as may be necessary
the year" Rev. SITS. 1886. Subsequent
LEGISLATION has changed this question and
authorized vote on tax for specilied
amount This change, however, does not
d,ec the validity OF action had before the
Change took eifect). Notwithstanding the
decision of the court in Az Tex, Alb and o.
Tex. 1856. the members of this court regard
the validity of the various provisions IN the
Revised Statutes for contesting eiectiohs as
still an open question in this court; Inc
tax levied was illegal and the court ana not
err in enjoining. Affirmed. oouin, 9. J.
Glasscock VS.. Schel; from Williamson
county. Petition in suit for damages for
breach of promise OF marriage sets up
simple contract without any circumstances
of aggrayatIon Whatever but contains a
general allegation of damages OF $4,000.
No special damages are alleged. Verdict
for plnin,ifl for $4,000. Two questions
arise. Il y What is the measure OF damages
where simple breach Of contract OF mar
riage is alleged without grounds oil aggrava-
tion2 (2.) Is it the duty OF the court to
charge the measure of damages? AS a
general rule the measure OF damages must
tutelegal grounds for damage and the sup.
porting evidence. The rule to be observed
in drawing the distinction between general
and special damages is laid down in
80 Tex, $50. A breach OF promise OF mar
rage Is tort and per above authority re-
uuires special damages which must be
pleaded specially. Precisely what dam
age, or what would be not only the natural
but necessary result OF n breach OF promise
of marriage, may admit OF question. AS
general rule, that which IS necessary TO be
proved should be first alleged. A mere
conclusion of law, however, need not be.
The usual elements Of actual damages
include disappointment of reasonable
expectation, money advantage Of pro-
posed marriage injury to the feelings,
ETC., and actual outlay in preparation, but
such do not follow as absolutely natural or
necessary results, for the breach may, be
satisfaction to both parties. Then, If not
the natural and necessary results, the law
will not imply damages, and unless they
are alleged and proven as element OF dam
age, the plaintiff, under objection ., proper
TO nominal damages. The court should
have charged the jury, what, in this case,
constituted the basis upon whichthey
should estimate the damages, Reversed
aud remanded. Bonner, j.