Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-06-19

Nrull, NOlOluuO anu santa re runway COM
pany, Appellant VS. W. II. Godalr, Appel
lee Appeal from district court of Tarraut
county,
Appellee Instituted this suit TO recover OF
appellant damage alleged 10 hay" been sus-
tanned 10 l2Ti head of cattle shipped from
Colorado Clty to Fort Worth over the Texas
ana Pacific railway, thence over appel
lant's line TO rurctll In the Indian Terri
tory, thence to Willow Springs, their pOlut
NJ destination, over connecting line. The
cattle arrived at Fort Worth IN time with.
out Injury aud We're placed In the pens u
tile Texas and Pacific company, where they
were FED ana wutered and ut once rendered
Ia appellant In the usual way " transIctug
such business between these companies but
the evidence Is not clear whether appellant
accepted the cattle or not. At any rate they
were permitted To reinuin badly crowded for
about three days In the Texas md Pacific
pens, where II was impossible 10 give them
proper attention. before they Were actually
loaded In appellants cars by reason OF
which they were damaged 10 II large
amount. II Is also claimed the cutie Were
not carefully handled between Fort Worth
ana Purcell by appellants servants, by
reason OF which u number were killed nud
number OF others injured. II was
claimed 10y plAintlm that OH account of the
treatment the cattle received at Fort Worth
aud ON the journey after they left there
their market vllue WHs much less when
they arrived at their destination than 1t
would have been had they been properly
handled, and the court below applied this
as the measure of plalntin's damage to
those injured, but not entirely lost. That
this is the general rule for measuring tile
dumnge in such cnses IL not questioned,
but In this case there was evidence tending
10 show thnt the cattle upon their arrival
nt Willow Springs uppeuled 10 have sus.
tulned much greater Injury Than subsc-
puently proved TO have teen the case, and
Ms appellee retained them until the real
damage was uscertained, appellant con-
teuds that he should have been restricted
To the actual loss he had sustained and
not allowed TO recover the amount that
erroneousy appeared to nave been received
nan In HHHHNaa ..I a
OF opinion that this Is correct. We be.
licyc Is has never been cont lpdpd TINT a
plaintiff can be restricted In the. amount
or MS recovery To less than the real IN
Jury TO his animals, because the apparent
INJURY did not seem to be so serious when
first inflicted nor can 1t be successfully
mulutuined that defendant should be ~.
CURED 10 pay more than the rrnl damage
because the injury TO the animal appears
To be more serious at first than II suhse.
qurnlly proves 10 be. This, OF course, does
not apply To stock Intended for market and
sold by the owner before the actual loss Is
tSrerthinrd. In hucu ease the ,,ynor only
receives the valIe Of his animal while still
IN Its damaged coalition and the difference
between THIS aud whit 1t wlull have been
worm Is TIE actual lnss to him and repre-
sthis Inc damage ne has iu fnct sustained.
Compensation for Tho actual loss X the
es'at deslleratuGi In applying the measure
OF damage In each case to the particular
facts therein developed, AMI no hidpbouud
or technical rules should br allowed to
ihwart or obsSlire his purpose when II can
Ia nrpsnutnJ Ia M, III ,in NV - ,Hltunk'
ipitt' a., H. H. ~ nu'u SUNNI oi SinytOh'
ISI ma in ih" ,,,,,,cr,,,' n,, " iHAns'
ia, rnfo...J "a III H. Wv, HuthuliNth tN,Ft'
r,r tgiiv,teu y" ana r. hollllhs more tliih
il, ia nara hn,,,Ii iuus us" yslnhilsleu
p,yant,in n tf'f''7n ,nh, ol iiuulry vs.
lie ,,,r'' tI,,., - 81. AS9 Tor huihQr-
mi ~ ~ j." s'r hppllriilon OF inns
sit - S.d I'm i"Vts or lhls p9ltellar case
i,,nJ an i1a,a ma VI :! i''In.i'srs, i',; SulIrf-
"a "7''' Hu'' PaBe w. sectlph
Appellee contends that this case should
ihu ,,. Iv ie,r r,u even u ms view of the
.u,.,,T AZ ,I I,,Gtu o'Cnuse appellant MED no
9prtii pNNulnE uieglhE that appcee's
,i,.t g,, VIZ i'"I! not ns fient as II az
inng Tafor, n, W. I'd nhn W. nave htsnulru
h,Jf,,' i,o, 49, "ilE lnlH contention. we
Win tha L,iIin,, me nSltcr reason ls
tl,J lac a,,attts 'ii''t ilc srnrrhl uch'ht
,,iye In r,arrir.e H.. iulul,'S ,he court 70
Ja,',.'t .nn -, III y" cortrtt measure Tor Tue
HInul1isv sustained accnrding TO the fncts as
Wiauii3tnru upo" lhe llluli ana lhat special
sn,,S,"Hn W. ny w, rvlulrcl. McHhcr "
49, H. iuAAN, ~ Iul hs throwing doubt
Wsii,, ~ tsSth.ss ." tnis hhcin.lon e"
WV W t IL i'uMuT r 20 IeNls aS4i hall-
Sh,'u r. f I'LL, y y, VN.si nIo, Nlhsscoch vs.
NM H., . sraai, IL AplMuto hlso contends
,s'' NV al'',Nl VhirEt upon tlls nfihch
ol Wy onsy requested by appellant was
tUst ' c,,S Irt w NM u therefore, has no
y III 'nus se nl Vnuipl1lhl, because THIS rhnfge
MI ,,N t,"ni"nu,.'.iu,h 70 me 'hiuV lhyufrl
A., ~, ., ru,t "ur'li hhu IuIcel! ana mere
th.... ,Sius,uv III ule record ihat amy OF
rscord ~ "" nus ttmcoNered, u Is true lhe
nor,,rt i rTvs Nv, ulSviosH Where the TEN
liz t6nt snls,,nnnn ,y nnlct,u upon the cat
put tht vice ia the action OF the court be-
NV was nor hlnllt III refusing the special