Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-22
COURT OF Appeal
Full Text Of Decisions sns.s
Worth Ohs,l

Court Of civil appeal, 81.
-. Iarlton, chief jasll~ /,
ana l. W. stephens. a,s.s..
W. i. HUI, clerk.
A. G. Buck, appellant =. ue.|
appellee. Appeal from ll,...
OPINION.
On the 1st deg Of M, ,a
Morrow leased TO A. q Hs5
pasture in Wise COUNTY XIV.
iivc years, commencing M I,
for the sum Of SIPS tpr ~.
provision that after ~ n
should Morrow have oe,.., I.
land, he should coinpcha, \, n
or all losses occasiorel \, 4 y n
was understood between M
the TIME that the land IA,
by Buck 10 Craze ca,ps N
the expiration Of two yean \ N
sold aud Appellant Buk b, \
He Offered to prove On n,
witness, j. L. Campbell. M, 4
he was dlspossessed he hal a
cattle IN the pasture lniis 4 !
and control Of said Camt2
he and Campbell had n6t
quiry aud search for amlls
but failed On hnd Que. Tin
We're turned out Of NE me,'
commons and rau at lara onl
for u period Of Eve moalt
other could be procured M Y
the time the cattle we've q
IL required IN extra hand Is
and keep them rounded % AZ
$3.50 per day. which was AID
charge, That an reasonli
was used 10 prevent ,ail
straying off. but during 0ll 4
Of them were lost, teaall|t
SIS DER head. and aflef iln
could not be found. frslr
was offered as to The cu>s
turing the cfttle 10 another ts
after procured. This lealrii
excluded on the ground liatW
material, the measure 81 l1
ing the difference. u any ~
contract price and the ai1
the pasture for the ungSpn}
rule followed by the tnal
GLIDING this evidence Is rniN 4
correct rule for measuring y
damages incident 20 Ne M
covenant for quiet enpyati
Ina addition TO the dliiGAa
the rent 10 bc paid and thp Y
of the mexpircd term, thl x
also recover as special zap
extra expense and damafes ( =
are the natural ard pr0rnia B
the breach. ], Woods VA
Tenant. section $685. ITO
lord aud Tenant, section
land ON Damages, lig--lo
The rule which conhn7
damages 10 the diilerlee
rental value and The s,a
seems TO rest r"on toe rS
Tie tenant can SO az once r'
ket and obtain like pioFm
US. Chandler, II Mleh-' "
the reason of the ilae 40
Il would seem that ihe rls
not apply 10 tie eXcla.@
considerations IN esIinil,'i
Special damages, n adaipl
allowed In many lusu'Ics
O'Toolc. I Barn. 2jli wa
kins. IS ILL.,. Jos, Shaw "
Mich. l02; lackelt "
Ind, lbs. g...s
II was held in pe "a 1.' NJ
% Texas. Suppl. l9i, lhs1
tenants goods OF slec u u'
dition 10 the value 81 ne 7. N
patton OF the premise.
sldercl In cstimating ve
Whatever special ,alA
and proximatcly respllea +
from the sale OF The lila
ton OF the iease--wtaleya \.
ably be supposed 70 nl',
tbe Contamination Of re
ti,ue OF the contract-lf
the item OF expense WEST Z
prove for pasturnge els,sa
should be- included "a w
ages. measured by w K.
tween the nlarket yalle y
~ the term and iLe e9A',
that that part Of ug
perhaps properly exclude,
Az 10 the extra e1ltA,
tident 10 d temporary
cottle on tie commons
gent effort % secure .,.',
I,roef should show lhal
ibe ' p,osimate result 81 "
Innd ana termination;
he leese. and that lhe.f
sustnined which e1leIs, N
nave occurred aud guy
,rant of proper cafe IA
'he part Of appellant, "
hi entitled 10 reeolfi VI NJ
~, ,lms sustained q
As 10 what Is ihe 'S. a
m ipiury il ordinarily Z,
.nry Isl Tsxus, ;H0' ga
he court erred 10 49, 49,
,onsi6oraiion III eyl'eg5
l9mago growing ogi y, q
,ppellant was forea' 1890,
M cattle upon tle
\, ,'S ,bot upon anoihs, s
roof. he would nol
over anything n W.
, ANN but, tlg'nF ep
n ne bin o. exeesH
,re Of opinion ,a5
'bonld have gone 2 lp2
me law prcWps ,.,es..i \
.nie Cor measu9ne as' as,
II exceptions nalsl "a ib
.xelude this eyideuss,i, ~. K,
~ nro,nisc 81 epqe'l, Az
PIe , psosl''o oeeaslal,s3 " s
M anthorlge pe ss,os
~ witch appellanl ..llsri
,ress agreements w
''s' g,o ~ naiunps
.roeeed from tbe 5.
he lpdemniiy.
yes. page iil4 s,s.a.
For ire error y
nony s 81 s.outrael vs.,
4 he uncXplIel IA
'ill Be reversed ap4 sI
Head. hS,ssIhis
IA not sitting. s--y
~ urConnof
orse dealer Of bels' II.
NJ a few days sals
eater he ,ion.