Court Opinion

ID: 9828334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:18:15.48628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.288167
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] In the first consideration of the case, we treated the evidence as showing that appellee had joined his fence with the right of way fence of the railway company, with the intention and purpose of using and having the railway fence to subdivide his tract of cultivated land into two separate and 'distinct inclosures, one on each side of the right of way. It was because of this fact appearing that appellee had intentionally subdivided and used his tract in two separate and distinct fields, one on each side of the railway, that we ruled that he had not so brought, himself within the terms of the statute in question as to make it applicable, for it would not appear in such circumstances that the railway passed “through a field or inclosure” of his. Upon a reconsideration of the case,, we find that we were in error in so treating the facts. We would not be warranted in the-evidence in concluding that appellee in fencing only to the right of way intended, and had the purpose of, having the railway fence operate to subdivide his cultivated land into-*333two separate fields or inclosures, one on each side of tlie right of way fence. This difference in fact makes, we think, the first ruling erroneous, and the appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted.
The assignments are further considered •and ruled on. The objection to the charge of the court heretofore set out must be overruled to the effect that it was erroneous as imposing absolute liability for the damages shown in the evidence because of the failure of the company to put in a stock guard that was sufficient to turn the hogs in evidence. The charge was in substantially the language •of the statute in such respect. See articles 6595-6598, R. S. of 1911. And statutes upon like subjects have been held constitutional as within the police powers of the state. See Railway Co. v. Childress, 64 Tex. 346; Railway Co. v. Rowland, 70 Tex. 298; 7 S. W. 718.
A further point made by the assignments is based upon the assumption that the evidence showed that it was impossible for the company to construct a stock guard that would be sufficient to turn the hogs in evidence. The proof does not, we think, warrant the assumption, and therefore such question is not properly before us. There is no proof that the hogs were not hogs of ordinary disposition and docility. The appellee testified, and there is no proof to the contrary, that “my hogs were not any worse than anybody else’s before they went through that guard.”
[3] Error is predicated upon the refusal of the court to give special charges to the effect that it was the duty of the appellee to minimize the damages to his growing crop by fixing the stock guards and the right of way fence so as to keep the hogs out of his field. The question here has been heretofore decided, and the assignments are overruled. Railway Co. v. Young, 60 Tex. 201; Railway Co. v. Adams, 63 Tex. 201; Railway Co. v. Knoepfli, 82 Tex. 270, 17 S. W. 1052; Railway Co. v. Blackwell, 40 S. W. 860; Kendall v. Railway Co., 95 S. W. 757.
The judgment is in all things affirmed.