Case Name: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Alfred Butler
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1936-04-01
Citations: 127 Tex. 154
Docket Number: Application No. 21,862
Parties: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Alfred Butler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Alfred Butler.
Application No. 21,862.
Decided April 1, 1936.
(93 S. W., 2d Series, 143.)
Turney, Burges, Culwell & Pollard and J. F. Hulse, all of El Paso, for plaintiff in error.
Wilchar & Wilchar, of El Paso, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Judge TAYLOR
of the Commission of Appeals delivered the opinion for the court.
The disposition made of this case by the Court of Civil Appeals (89 S. W. (2d) 791) is correct. We are not in accord, however, with the statement in the opinion to the effect that in Missouri K. & T. Ry Co. v. Belcher, 89 Texas, 428, 35 S. W., 6, the rule, that in order to recover special damages for breach of contract it is incumbent upon plaintiff to show that at the date of the contract the defendant had notice of the special conditions rendering such damages the natural and probable result of the breach, was abrogated by this Court in Conn et al. v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., 14 S. W. (2d) 1004. The rule announced in the Belcher Case is still the law. In the Conn Case, as in this, the carrier made a new agreement and at the time had knowledge of the special damages that would result from the negligent breach of the new agreement.
Application for the writ is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Article 1728, R. S., 1925, as amended by Acts 1927, 40th Leg., p. 214, ch. 144.
Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court April 1, 1936.