Case Name: FT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. v. WILLIE S. & J. B. IKARD CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-10-26
Citations: 140 S.W. 502
Docket Number: 
Parties: FT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. v. WILLIE S. & J. B. IKARD CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 140
Pages: 502–502

Head Matter:
FT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. v. WILLIE S. & J. B. IKARD CO.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
Oct. 26, 1911.)
Carriers (§ 229 ) — Live Stock — Injury-Damages — ELEMENTS.
On injury to the shipment, shippers of cattle for exhibition at a stock show and for sale were not entitled to recover from the carrier for loss of prize money which might have been won at the show.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 229. ]
Error to Clay County Court; S. A. Denny, Judge.
Action by the Willie S. & J. B. Ikard Company against the Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed, on condition of remittitur.
Taylor & Humphrey, Allen & Allen, Spoonts, Thompson & Barwise, and J. M. Chambers, for plaintiff in error. Wantland & Parish and P. M. Stine, for defendant in error.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HODGES, J.
Defendant in error recovered a judgment in the court below against the plaintiff in error for damages to a shipment of cattle. The cattle were shipped for the purpose of being placed on exhibition at the Fat Stock Show at Ft. Worth and for sale. Defendant in error was allowed $110 for damages sustained in the loss of prizes which it is claimed the cattle would have taken, had they been carried through in the usual time and in proper condition, and $190 for injuries inflicted by delay. Plaintiff in error complains of the allowance of the first item, contending that such damages are too remote and speculative to constitute an element of actual damages.
So far as we know, no court has over announced a satisfactory rule for distinguishing the proper elements of actual damages from those too remote and uncertain to form the basis of a judgment. It seems that each particular case in which that question has arisen has been determined upon its own peculiar facts. Under the pleadings and evidence in this case, we think'the defendants in error were not entitled to recover the damages for loss of prize money. Telegraph Co. v. Crall, 39 Kan. 580, 18 Pac. 719; 1 Sutherland on Damages, § 71.
The judgment of the county court will be affirmed, on condition that the defendant in error, within 30 days from this date, remits the sum of $110. If it should fail to do so, the judgment will. be reversed, and the cause remanded. In any event, the costs of this appeal will be taxed against the defendant in error.