The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-15

permanent injuries becndse Of tho absence
NJ evidence to show what would purchase
an annuity was property refused. Nor was
II error to refuse charge 10 allow only
compensatory damages aud nothing for the
purpose of Furnishing defendant, the suit
being only for Compensatory damages, and
the general charge correctly instruCting the
jury TO find ouly actnal damages. The evil
dencc tending 10 show permanent disa-
bility $1,000, cannot DO said to be an exccs.
siye award. Affirmed. Stayton ].
City OF Fort Worth vs.. Davis ct al from
| Tarrant county. This suit was to enioin
the collection of q special school tax, whichl
under an election In 1871, assuming control
/ of the public schools, was levied by sub
sequent vote lin 1850 on the proposition
whether or not the city council OF the city
Of Fort Worth, should be empowered TO
| levy q tax of oneiourth of one per cent. for
the support of public free schools" The
| constitutionality OF articles 37S5, 1856
and 1887, being attacked, were prop
erly upheld in the court below.
But the statutory question, which
such an amount be raised by taxation not
exceed one halt Of one per cent. in addi-
ton to the pro rata Of the school fund re-
ceived from the state, rs may be necessary
TO conduct the schools for ten months in
the year" Rev. SITS. $3.50 Subsequent
legislation has changed this question and
authorized q vote on Il tax for specified
amount. This change, however, does not
etIec the validity of action had before the
change took effect. Notwithstanding the
decision OF the court in As Tex, 4l3 and %
! Tex 1896, the members Of this court regard
the validity of the various provisions in tue
Revised Statutes for contesting elections as
still an open question in this court. The
tax levied was Illegal and the court did not
err in enjoining. Affirmed. Gould, C. ].
Glasscock VS.. Schell; from Williamson
county. Petition in suit for damages for
breach of promise OF marriage sets up
simple contract without any circumstances
of aggravation whatever, but contains q
general allegation Of damages of SlO,0 600.
No special damages are alleged. Verdict
| for plaintiff for $1,000. Two questions
arise. a. What is the measure OF damages
where simple breach of contract OF mar
rage is alleged without grounds Of aggraya-
| ton? (2.) Is it the duty of the court to
charge the measure of damages? As q
general rule the measure Of damages must
| be governed by allegations which consti-
tute legal 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. go. A breach of promise of mar
riage is q tort, and per above authority re-
guires special damages which must be
ISSioclf nhep N''''t
age, or what would be not only the natural
but necessary result OF a 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 at proper
time and manner, would be entitled only
to nominal damages. The court should
have charged the jury, what, in this case,
constituted the basis upon whichthey
should estimate the damages. Reversed
and remanded. Bonner, j.