Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-21
Gregory Cooley and Co.. appellants. vs..
Coleman aud Estes apnolipcs Appeal
from district court Of Mitchell county.
gpNgf rrcfosfe I'm. a., ,.r

RON district court VI Mitchell county.
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT
This suit was brought by appellees 10 re-.
cover Of appellants damages, both actual
ana exemplary, Cu account N the seizure.
at Kansas CITY. Missouri under "a writ OF
trrl"vln. ~ "A beef Steers the property OF
appellees. witch were in transit from ANA
nue, Texas, tu chicago. Illinois.
lheie WnH "a compromise OF the roplcvln
SUIT % tuu terms or which one Of the APP
p.uees, !. g. coleman, received OF appel
settlement Of the value of the cattle Ina
controversy in suld onugo aud agreed not
90 ,bHng any suit upon the rppluyin bond.
llls compromise was effected oct % 1850.
ut Kansas city. Thereafter apuollecs msu.
tntcd this suit in Mitchell county. Texas,
uHcginf in substance, that the utlidaylt
WA9e 10y appellants 20 uu 900 tue writ or
teplevih was false and made without prob
able cause Tor heller iu its truth. that the
'hillt Do question We're tho property OF
hpprllccs; That appellants bad mo- interest
lnnlcluusly aud uulaWfuIly Zoo smug out
me wit ~ rOplvFlu, with the intent 10
iulme nnd hntnss uppcllcvs who were put
to great damage hul expense Boo defend.
ing thc rcplpyiu suit 60 wit. lu the sum uf
tNlUNb, admitting. however. the payment
~ appellants NJ Si5BjN as part Of the
liu,n OF said cattle, which were alleged
20 bc worth SlaBj.S3. and PRAYING FOR iuig.
mrni for F.Wu actual damages aud $1,000
exemplary damages uul for general relief
Tile trial Resulted iu "a verdict aud mIg.
mrnt 200 their favor Tor The sum of Si actual
Nhl flruJ exemplary damages. FROM which
Judgment th.s appeal D. prosecuted.
q, ~, verdict j. supported by the evidence
lu t.lhuHhlug thC Following conclusions.
J. lhtt Chg cattle were the property OF
ulp'll,', aud lhut appellants had no utter.
D4t whatever tbpitiu.
y THAT thc writ Of rcplcyin was not only
MfuuEiuIly but without probable rnusp audi
mulriuusly suul ont.
b That thg compromise of the rcplryin
SUIT was limited 90 fhr yulun uf tla tiif.
tlU which bad been concerted bv u-li.
NUTS u} means Of The proceedings lu thut
nWi nui dii not include % settlement az
.l' u9"agr for the wrongs herein complain
q That on account " lbc wrongful and
malicious seizure uH aforesaid. uuurllpra
Mvr rhlurl Co recover yindictiyr d1mugu-,
lrnsou incurred iu defending that suit iu
tue SUM uf $lsOU.
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
T. Tho urst ALIGNMENT VI error complains
OF lhr exclusion from tho evidence W certain
iratlWuuy OF H. H. liustlugs ono of fhs
appellants. tending to show tbnt Inc com.
promise entered INTO Zoo tile r,pIrNIu ault
lIglu.u within los scope thu matter. iUI.
ku'u lh nus sun, uud Hint the s'pulutiups
contained in thr written receipt relied upu.
hN ulprllv,H uH the only evidence nr the
lti uH OF tue compromise dld Not DAurpFa
we luii terms ot settlement This witness.
~ Wen hN The attorney for nppvllautH Zoo
lh' f'plrNin suit did testify. be- uuurars
ltAh iur statement uf fuCts subj tunflHllv
20 Mhh' occurred ut aui before thp conn.
PROMISE nt THAT suit. aud their version
ut the transaction was submitted by Mo-
,nuII 100 the charge tu the Jury Hence If
'l"Ir was error boo excluding Jlls evidence
uH SHOWN hy ihr hill off executions 10 WINS
rendered harmless hy tur suhspmout nduiie.
hiuu ut run proof upun the Issue und its
uhhlNtiuIt tu thr Jury
il lh" srruud assignment aud propo-
niuu hereunder upuulluui'a ronlnl1ln tirt
lhu settlement Tor the Value of hr cnttlr
I'm 'n l.r lrplr'lu SUIT necessarily uclud.
~. ni ",'uW uhmhfc. whether nominal cor
"'"'I"irn kIuMluE uut uf their seizure ANA
'"u'ri7luu. aul that therefore. tlerp w1s
error 100 rmrHug the iurs thul they mIlutI
nue. nominal damages.
Ut uls ur assumed We are of opinion thnt
lhr error would NOT require "a frytrsuI %
lhr Judgment thr Jury showing fYuuI 3D.
4, .uW damage only The nominal swp ,SrSIf
~ MliA h' conceded iu caste where fHsrk
huH hrgu uu payment ur satisfnctlun w
u,luW damages. HAT a. recovery of rNrI
llWf without also recovering actual, Liru.
Nh'H MuuIu NOT hH upheld. hut ,yir~7-N-'r tuul
$1,000 lnl' uHiuhFr has been sustained uud
7riNcd for without including M thp settle.
lhrhl lNr claim tnr indlcilyc damage a
recovery ut thr former. whether nnmiuul ar
substantial, IS not believed to be- IA prsrr.
VeNig 10 "a recovery of the latter
p. ne luliu assignment that "thC court
W,,u ln ItluNhs 10 give 100 charge to the
hy defendants" h too general to rc0uir1
v ,,,h,,sll OF the propositions submitted
4, 'lhis brings us 10 the last assignment
round no appellants BRIEF by Whlrh thry
complain or the verdict nH being eNt,ssivp
u,d especially la that tho amount recover
~ vA'',ltu me amount claimed Ia the pp-
uuou As tho evidence showed thnt the
amount OF actual damage sustained. Though
Nul recovered because previously autlsuo,
MAa reasonably ptopurtl1uutc lu The amount
on yArWpull damages awarded this con
iohiluu must be oyVrrulpd eKcept lu -n oar
uH complaint rs made that tho amount ~
me verdict exceeds the amount alleged iu
lu' prnuon, We are of oIEuiun that the
,S'v yt ,ullWAl Co., vs.. Gordon, ~ Texas.
tt nrled upon Toy Uppclvvs tu sustain the
Norlirs rs not pullrcy ppplicpble to Gn
rlsr pes here presented MI M he ns.utnrt
Whch we do mot decidp that ATTORNEYS
i''s unu othrr expenses of litigation may
the Sum uf 100000 covering thps, ifrn,
was So alleged us 10 make IL vccoNerubla
W 3udiuAh to, ANA not us "a part uf. tht
,o W. AZ aih. nv "i exemplary damage alleged
sun De- excessive lu the case Relied uuou
lntlH were alleged showing me amount III
nluAl damages, though improperly demon.
tnn''u exemplary in the pleading. Tor which
we NvruVt was returned ANA sustained
N cannot Doe said. us We think fhnt M,
pgiuon ih Tits case showed such Ia STATE
H facts, lieeidvs the claim hero sci up
Nn1 h lis nature penal, and the same ms.
NJ NAM S"u'uu''loh should not perhaps
we are of opinion that appences on NO.
count or the manner Ia which thplr causp
Hi Wlloh wac stated IN The petition, should
uN then above the sum OF 5000 and tbnt
NlNu lht fcmliiltur being nled within
tWehA days the Judgment should be- afifi1n
49,, "'r r., M,sr icy h be rovcrssd and the
N"Nhe ANHlAh0td lOt new trial.
STEPHENS
Asss-tTre Jus,ice.
CONSULAR CANDIDATES ANX.