Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-17


/. Cotton was a transient person and IN
| sulvent. 10 recover damages sustained by
I reason of being deprived OF selling lamps,
, n, n actors. etc. Defendants recovered 10
: Justice of the peace court, but Gay ap-
. pealed to the county court and recovered
. iudp1oeut for $50 80 Only one question
. of materiai Importance Is suggested In
this appeal II was raised by defendants
, in the lower court by demurrer and special
, exceptions TO the petition which were
overruled. Here IL Is stated by appel
iant's counsel In their brief in the shape
OF the following propositions, Wiz u.
Prof to be made oY the sale OF the
. goods herein are not recoverable, the
measure OF damages, II any, being the de-
preciati In the value OF the lamps, re-
fectors, etc, from the date of the service
of the Injunction until the day IT was dis
solved. 2. The loss of the sale Of goods
or the profits to be- made thereby are not
recoverable in damages"
IL is well settled rule that specula-
ton, imaginary and hypothetical profits
are too remote to form the basis VI le-
climate claim But to the general rule
disallowing future profits as legitimate
grounds tor damages there are several
exceptions, as where under contract la.
Dor is to be performed fro u which profit
liz to spring as the direct
result of the work TO be done at
a stipulated price, and one party Is
prevented from earning such profits by
the wrongful act of the other Profits in
a business are recoverable II the data of
estimation are so definite and certain that
they can be ascertained reasonably by
calculation. In Houston G. Texas Central
Railway company vs. Hill, our supreme
court says: "If man has been engaged
in,buslness for any length Of time, he can
form some estimate from his past earn
ings what its profits will be in the future.
In such cases II deprived of the faculty of
| pursuing the business, at least by the tor
tlous acts of another, he can estimate his
damages with something like certainty.
| penn. X. X Co. vs.. Dale, ~ Penn. st.
AZ; 8 Tex. Law Review, 207). Affirmed.
White, P j.
First National Bank of Decatur VS..
Amos Finch. Appeal from Wise county.
Tais suit was brought against appellee
(who was tax collector of Wise county,
aud who had levied upon and taken
S3l2l0 from appellants to pay taxes,
balance due the state and county,, by APP
pellant to recover for the wrongful
seizure and conversion of said money,
lleging In its first supplemental petition
that the assessment for taxes were not
due from the bank, it being a nstional
bank, but that the same should have been
assessed against the stockholders of said
bank in proportion to the amount OF stock
each OF said stockholders held in
said bank. That all of said share
holders had paid their pro rata
share OF said tax, except one j
l.. Ullman, who was a large shareholder
in said bank, and who, without authority,
had rendered the property of the bank
January, 1884, for taxation, and that all
the facts alleged were known to Appellee
Finch when he kvi-d upon, seized and
converted said $312 10. This petition
was excepted to, exception sustained aud
judgment rendered in the court below
that the bank took nothing. The petit
ton nowhere alleges who the sharehold-
ers OF said stock were, nor the amount
re, pectively of their shares of stock, but
does allege that call of the share
holders OF the bank except j
l.. Ullman have paid their pro
rata share of the taxes due
on said $500 and on the values of the
shares owned by them, and that the
amount due and seized, to-wit, 1912 10, is
the amount due by said Ullman individu.
ally on lis shares or stock in said bank.
1t Is evident that the law does not con-
template that the shares or capital stock
of bank should be assessed against it
In It's corporate capacity, unless thus
owned and held by it, National Bank VS.
Rogers, 81 Texas, 606) But who was to
know how 1t was held? The president of
the bank is presumed TO know the law,
and certainly he must have known the
facts. He rendered the shares In the |
name Of the bank in its corporate capac- |
ity, and both the assessor and collector
had the right to presume that the assess
ment was correct. Affirmed. White, z. j. |
The Western Union Telegraph company
VS.. DavidsGoslin. Appeal from Dallas |
county. The telegram sent by Goslin was |
an unrepeated night message for. one
dozen lamps, which, by negligence or
mistake of the OPERATOR was made to |
read four dozen lamps. Two of the |
stipulations in the contract with regard to |
the message were, first, that the sender
would not on account of any negligence |
OF the compa y claim more than ten
times the amount paId for transmission
by way OF damages, and second, that the
claim in writing should be presented
within thirty days. Message sent
May 10, 1888, claim presented
August IL, 1888 The sender
.AaNNN'tSS VIM eiEuSu tDC
therefor Is bound to take notice of the
p inted terms thereon, and is bound by
the contract The contract recurring
claim to be presented in thirty days was
valid and obligatory. 1t is ordered and
decreed that appellant recover his costs
In this behalf expended. Reversed and
rendered. White, p j.
Charles tunnels VS.. the State. Appeal
from Frio county. When, during the
pending OF suit and after several wit
nesses have testified, person tells coun.
sci for defendant that he knows facts
material to the case, witnesses being nm.
der the rule, II is not error for the court
TO refuse to admit his testimony. When
the general charge contained the law
applicable to the case, it was not error
Tor the court to refuse special charge
containing practically the same points
embodied In the general charge. Affirm.
ed Hurt, j.