The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-26


dence showed possession by plaintiffs for
part of the required period. and there was
no testimony as to the occupancy of the
land for the balance of said period. The
contention seems to be that the possession
OF the plaintiffs must be presumed to have
continued up to the time of the bringing OF
tho suit.
When a state OF facts is proved to exist,
II is sometimes presumed to continue. III
the absence of evidence to the contrary
hut we do not understand this 10 apply to
proof of possession under the statute OF
limitations. A party who claims title by
adverse possession must prove continued
actual possession for the period prescribed
by law. He can not by proof Of possession
for part Of the time shift the burden upon
his adversary of showing an abandonment.
Since possession for the required time was
not shown. We have not found 1t necessary
10 pass upon the question whether or rot
there was any proof of payment of taxes.
Application refused opinion W Gaines,
C. j.
TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COM
PANY VS.. w. n. BIGHAM: suit 10 re-
cover damages of the railway company,
from Taylor county, Second district--Ee-
yersed end remanded.
On November 25. 1892. Bigham, in accord
ance with Encouragement made with the
agent of appellant. common carrier. for
the shipment of his cattle, had peaIed the
cattle in the stockpens of the appellant plo-
vided by it for that purpose. The gate
which admitted entrance into the pen vas
out of repair. and had been for sumo
months. as the appellant knew. The appi-
ances for fastening it were defective, end
It's condition was due to the negligence OF
the defendant.
In order TO prevent the escape Of the cat
tie intended for shipment, the appelle was
in the act of fastening the gate with a
rope, which he had secured for that rur-
pose. when the noise Of passing freight
train so frightened the cattle that they
plunged towards and upon the gate. the
one upon top of the other, and before the
appellee could escape they hurled MIN some
twenty feet upon the ground. ,nficiiug
upon him serious personal injuries. This
suit was brought as well to recover for
the injuries inflicted upon the cattle as
for the injuries inflicted upon the person
OF plaintiff plaintiff recovered Judgment
in the trial court and this judgment vas
affirmed by the court OF civil appeals.
Whether under the above facts, the in
juries complained OF were proXimately
caused by the negligence of defenl INT, is
lne only question presented.
In order to constitute the proXimate. the
injury must be the natural and probable
result of the negligent act or omission com s.
planned Of. The reason is init d Iarty
should not he held responsible Cor he cen
quence of an act which ought not to lave
been reasonably foreseen. To require this
is to demand of human nature a degree of
care Incompatible with tho prosecutions of
the ordinary avocatons of life. The aies-
tion OF probable cause ought TO depend
upon the further question, whether "A rea 90
sonably prudent man. in view of all lie
facts would have anticipated the result
| not necessarily the precise injury. but some
like injury, produced by similar ih,eisen-
ing agencies.
Ought the agents of the conf any to have
foreseen. that, as a result of the impnlf feet
fastening of the gate. the injury or in
1Gries similar In character, would probably
result? Nothing short OF prophetic ken
Gould have anticipated the happening of
the combination of events which resulted
in the injuries TO the person of The plain
TIL, II should be held as a matter OF Law
that the negligence of the company gave NJ
right Of action for such injuries
| For the injuries to his cattle we think II
equally clear that the petition showed a
cause of action. 1t was the duty of the
| defendant to safely hold the cattle, and II
ought reasonably to have foreseen that BY
reason of the defective latch the cattle
might escape and that the plain in nigh
thereby suffer a loss. Besides, the labil.
ity of defendant as a common carrier hat
attached.
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Gaines. C. i.
MISSOURI. KANSAS AND TEXNs R.IL,
WAY COMPANY VS.. J. w. COLBURN
certified question in II case from Clay
county. Second district--Answercd in ia.
NJ lpfpDia haIpw ha
pany.
About 1887 the defendant below estah-
lshod railway station at Doss, she sum,
being designated and located in accordanc,
with articles 1894 and ig25, Revised Stat
utes.
Afterwards. the company removed its de
pot building from Doss TO Rinsgold ant
tore up its side track and disc ,utinued it,
station at Doss, and ceased to stop its train,
there or receive freight or passengers there
Between the time of establishing the sta
ton at Doss and the removal Of same /,
Rnggcld, appellee purchased farm a
pcss contiguous to the station and depo,
and moved thereon being induced to d.
so by the benefits and advantages which
such station and depot afforded him ant
the consequent increased value Of the Ian,
purchased by him, as the country wOui,
be settled up and tho s.ntjon uight grow
in size, buslnese and population His land
before The removal Of The station las wor;l
$500. Afterwards and in consequence o
such removal, the value OF The land wa
deprecated and II was worth only $500
Plaintf therefore sued the rompany an,
recovered Slo0n damages occariuned bv Thu
depreciation in The vllao OF his land.
Questiou--Doos the renewal Of a :allra,
station, In violation Of the statue az s.
art. iiE2). give right OF action 10 ore VII,
owned property az or dear the ablni 3ne,
station?
The object Of tho legislature in cnaotin.
the article referred TO appears "a have tcfi
TO promote the intcreHt OF the public alone
10y making permanCat iho pl5e,s Tor III.
tan7acion Of business hl ouch ,o~nola.
tons. There is nothing IN the law ~ in,
d'cate that tho legislature had In nhl
the protection OF individual PROPERTY own
clN at such places.
II the plainC" in This case occurred ,
vested risht IN the continuance Of the de-
pct AZ noss. then tho legiglafure could