The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-01-08
e. SUPREME COURT.

b, Texas dsljvered by the supreme
e,ss .r VS.. A. +. FIELDS Fl
rom Caldwell County; IN" go
To-, rv.,, If error refused.
W clearly OF the opinion tha' ihe
10 for the writ oil error IN tnis
iv IVA be refused. But since me
wv. the court of civil appears
u only a former decision OF
es pnt also the ruling Of another
WV ii onpeals, we deem 1t proper
',ra guidance of the profession
s,,r concurrence In their opinion.
,t Of the trial court Wis re-
IGN The cause remanded by the
s,vn appeals, and the conflict
OF ne jurisdiction of the applica-
-,.,or of the court OF sivil sp-
op ~. ravlews the authorities tpon
hon .,or presented. and is. as we
unanswerable. we have maue
md possibly exhaustive research
"a found no case, save those IN
y, courts in which contrary doc
.unounced. TO those cited in the
~ the court of civil appeals in
~ their ruling may be added
r,r, recent cases: Kline VS..
soss iso Pa, 22}; Fields VS.. VIII
. So Rep tAla.), sos,
n,,catjon for the writ of error is
10 Ion by R. r. Gaines, Chief Justice.
.,r,on of the court OF civil ap-
" the above case was delivered
..,ate Justice Key. 1t overrliled
,,s decisions of the supreme court
o,her courts of civil appeals on
me question. The opinion delivered
snnreme court yesterday, as will be
aboye. reverscs its former decision
3sopts that of Justice Key.
facts of the case, and question de-
nv the court of civil appeals In
rase are substantially as follows:
lavender, 1859. appellant. having in
oras valid execution against tine
Manufacturing company and j. II.
or for the sum of S739.73, levied the
nnon. seized and took possession
Mock of merchandise of the value Of
and on the 9th day of the same
appellant sold said merchandise
bic eaie, anu 'ii' "pPchcc, ~ -
a.. became the purchaser thereof
le sum of S725. ID. c. Munster in
led this suit against Field, alleging
diversion of the merchandise. and
he Judgment for It's value. He ie-
IA Judgment for sl29336, with inter-
The trial court held that, if the
Srty belonged to appelle at the time
|, seizure, he was entitled to re-
! It's full market value, with inter 4st;
That the fact that he had bought it
be sheriff's sale and recovered pos
|of It for less than its market value
hot in any wise. affect the measure
Images.
L ruling is assigned as error.
purpose of the law in awarding
ii damages is to repair the wrong
has been done, to compensate for
bnjury inflicted, but not TO impose
)ty. Any method that will afford
injured party more than just and
|nahlo compensation. Is not the cor
measure of actual damages. whether
Injury be the result of a willful wrong
b honest mistake. Actual or compen-
ty damages are not dependent upon
|guarded by the intent with which
wrongful act is done; while, in many
y, intent is an important factor In
furing exemplary damages. And IN
tmining the extent of the plaintiffs
~, and the amount of actual damage,
{ is no infiexible rule of law that
Is the inquiry to the exact time that
tort was committed. Conditions
ng thereafter and which might rca-
bly, be expected, may increase the
ht Of the original injury; while, on
other hand, entire or partial repara-
may be made; and In case of con-
lon, the owner may voluntarily regain
ession Of his property before trial.
ven before suit is brought.
le property levied on was worth
Ss, II was held fourteen days and
by the sheriff Except the fact, that
Id at sheriff's sale for only 1925. there
% evidence that the property rad
eciated In value. In two weeks after
property was taken the plaintiff
ntarily regalned possession of 1t by
lg out S72j.
der these facts, will IT require si293. SO
interest to compensate the plaintiff
his actual loss? lie has the prop
alleged TO have been converted; APP
ntly 1t is worth about as much as
converted; and, to regain It he has
compelled to pay out only s725. Now
e defendant he required to pay the
tit nearly double the amount 1t
cost MIN to regain his property, will
lot be condemned, under the gu'se
ctual damages, to pay the plaintiff
al hundred dollars more than the
nony showed his loss to have been?
V some item of special damage not
aled by the pleading and evidence
hown' our conclusion is, that the
EST on the value of the property from
'ime Of its seizure to the time Of
,ie, the amount paid by the plaintiff
Is BID for the property, and interest
W. amount from the time II was paid,
whatever amount, If any, the prom
may have deprecated in value while
s Wlthheld from the plaintiff, Is
'orrect measure of damages: and
wise. '9
'ersed and remanded. Opinion by
]. -
decisions of the supreme court
ing unon this question are: Sohvoler
,iutchins. &c. Texas. 32t: and Hart
> vs. Blum, 76 Texas, 1l3.