American Const. Co. v. Davis

141 S.W. 1019, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 497
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 15, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 141 S.W. 1019 (American Const. Co. v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Const. Co. v. Davis, 141 S.W. 1019, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 497 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

JENKINS, J.

This is a companion .case to American Construction Co. v. C. D. Caswell, 141 S. W. 1013, this day decided by this court. On the authority of that case, and *1020 the authorities therein cited, we hold as follows:

1. [1] Lost profits, proximately caused by wrongful acts, when capable of reasonable ascertainment, is a proper element of damage.

2. [2] Alleged profits, which are merely conjectural, and incapable of being ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty, do not afford a proper basis for the recovery of damages. This does not mean that in order to recover for such profits they must be shown with exactness, but only that the amount of such profits may be reasonably deduced from the facts proven.

S. [3] Loss of profits to an established business, occasioned by the unlawful obstruction of a public street, is a special loss peculiar to the party thus injured, even though others similarly situated may suffer a like loss from the same cause.

4. [4] In order to show a loss of profits to an established business it is permissible to show the amount of business done by complainant in a corresponding period of time not too remote, and the business done by complainant during the time of such obstruction.

5. [5] Fencing a portion of a public street, for the purpose of protecting building material thereon, without an ordinance of the municipality permitting the erection of such fence, is unlawful even though such building material be lawfully deposited on such street.

• 6. [6] A resolution of a city council is not an ordinance of such city, where the charter prescribes the manner in which ordinances must be passed, and in passing such resolution the requisites prescribed for passing an ordinance were not complied with.

7. [7] In many cases it is permissible for a nonexpert witness to give his opinion, upon facts stated by him, such facts showing that he is possessed of sufficient information to form an intelligent opinion as to the matter about which he testifies.

8. [8] It is not reversible error to permit a witness to give his opinion upon facts stated by him, where it appears that the jury could not have reasonably come to a different conclusion from such facts.

9. [9] It is not error to refuse to give a charge which is abstractly correct, where there is no evidence upon which to predicate such charge.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gulf Coast Investment Corporation v. Rothman
506 S.W.2d 856 (Texas Supreme Court, 1974)
Atomic Fuel Extraction Corporation v. Slick's Estate
386 S.W.2d 180 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Hindman v. Texas Lime Company
305 S.W.2d 947 (Texas Supreme Court, 1957)
L-M-S Inc. v. Blackwell
233 S.W.2d 286 (Texas Supreme Court, 1950)
L-M-S Inc. v. Blackwell
227 S.W.2d 593 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Belcher v. Bullion
121 S.W.2d 483 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Mercer
90 S.W.2d 557 (Texas Supreme Court, 1936)
Watson Co. v. Lone Star Service Station
16 S.W.2d 151 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Harvey v. City of Seymour
14 S.W.2d 901 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Big Four Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Williams
9 S.W.2d 177 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Big Four Ice Cold Storage v. Williams
9 S.W.2d 177 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Bagby v. Hodge
297 S.W. 882 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Northern Texas Utilities Co. v. Community Natural Gas Co.
297 S.W. 904 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Vance v. Town of Pleasanton
261 S.W. 457 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Houston T. C. R. Co. v. Lindsey
175 S.W. 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Bennett v. Foster
161 S.W. 1078 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
American Const. Co. v. Jackson
142 S.W. 1198 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 S.W. 1019, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-const-co-v-davis-texapp-1911.