Court Opinion

ID: 9831023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:43:06.374664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.506638
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.'
Appellee vigorously contends that we are in direct conflict with many Texas cases in our conclusion that he cannot recover for loss of his rental contract, and of the profits from a row crop of 130 acres, which was to be planted under such contract after the unlawful levy on his tractor. We briefly quote from one of these cases, emphasized by appellee as directly contradicting our holding in this case:
“The evidence in the record sufficiently shows that defendant was apprised, through its agents, óf the fact that plaintiffs expected to plant between three and four hundred acres of their land in San Augustine county to oats in the year 1914, and defendant knew that plaintiffs would probably lose their oat crop for that year unless the tractor and plows would do the work required by plaintiffs, and as represented they would do by defendant. * * *
“We think that the claimed damages for an oat crop that would have been planted in the fall of 1915 and harvested in 1916 are too remote, and therefore the damages allowed by the trial court to that extent cannot be upheld. In this connection, we think there was no evidence that defendant was put on notice that plaintiffs expected to plant any oats in 1915, to be harvested in 1916, and therefore damages for loss of an oat crop for that year, being in the nature of special damages, are not -recoverable.” Avery Co. v. Harrison Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 254 S.W. 1015, at pages 1018, 1019.
Recovery was allowed for 1914, but disallowed for 1915-1916. This authority, it seems to us, supports, instead of contradicting our original opinion. Herej there is no allegation or proof that appellant had any notice of such rental contract, or of appel-lee’s intention to plant 130 acres of row crop, or even that appellee was a tenant farmer, when the unlawful levy was made. Appellee assumes and argues that because he properly alleged notice of the exempt character of the tractor, appellant in law had such notice, as authorized the recovery of the damages already discussed. Wheat as well as row crops are planted. The former could not have been in contemplation of the parties in May, and we cannot hold as a matter of law, appellant had notice of ap-pellee’s intention to plant the latter, or of the other facts pleaded and made the basis of the damages recovered.
•It -would have been easy -for appellee to have alleged facts which authorized the re*1229covery of special damages, if any existed, We cannot supply by inference what should have been alleged and proven directly.
Motion overruled.