Court Opinion

ID: 9827389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:29:04.553721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:30.054957
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3, 4] The notice of the probable consequences or special damages that will arise from a breach of contract or act of negligence must be shown to exist at the time of the making of the .contract or of the negligent act or omission. See Express Co. v. Darnell, 62 Tex. 639; Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 90 Tex. 223, 38 S. W. 162. It is clear that this ease was not brought within this general rule, nor yet, we think, within the Bourland Case, 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1111, 122 Am. St. Rep. 647, which, properly considered, is no exception to the general rule. Moreover, as originally concluded, it is by no means clear that the negligent omissions complained of caused the loss of the customer. On this point we have carefully considered the testimony. Among other things. Mr. Walker, general manager and buyer for the Davis Cash Grocery Company, testified:
“I quit buying coffee from Mr. Bean late in 1919. I quit buying from him because he was selling to cafés. I did that because he was cutting me out of that business. We are entitled to the café business. That’s the way I look at it.”
We remain of the opinion that a judgment for the special damages sought because of the alleged loss of the customer; cannot be supported under the testimony within the meaning of the decisions. The damages in this respect, as we originally held, are altogether too remote.
The motion for rehearing will accordingly be overruled.