Gatewood v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co.

232 S.W. 493, 111 Tex. 291, 1921 Tex. LEXIS 96
Texas Supreme Court·Decided June 22, 1921·No. No. 3089.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case — one for damages growing out of negligent delay in a shipment of cattle, certain witnesses on the trial were asked in substance to state the difference between the market value of the cattle in the condition in which they arrived at destination and that in which they would have arrived but for the negligence of the defendant. The witnesses, it appears, were qualified to give their opinion upon the subject, and the trial court permitted their answers to the questions. The Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District because of the admission of this testimony, among other grounds, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause, Chief Justice Connor dissenting from the holding of the court as to the admissibility of the testimony. ■ We granted the writ of error because of the dissent.

We have recently determined the same question in Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Prunty, 230 S. W., 396, holding such testimony as to market value to be admissible. That decision settles the question in this case.

This is the only ground of the reversal of the judgment by the Court of Civil Appeals which presents a question within our jurisdicton; and we have jurisdiction of this only because of the dissent. In addition to its holding upon this question, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment on account of the admission of other evidence, as to which the members of the court were agreed, and because in its opinion the evidence was insufficient to warrant the judgment. These latter questions are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals.

The case is withdrawn from the Commission of Appeals, to which it has been heretofore referred, and is here determined. We disapprove the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals on the testimony above indicated, but since it reversed the judgment of the trial court *293 upon other grounds as to which its jurisdiction is exclusive, its judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Gatewood v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co., 232 S.W. 493, 111 Tex. 291, 1921 Tex. LEXIS 96 (Tex. 1921).

232 S.W. 493 (Gatewood v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Vaught
294 S.W. 865 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Fort Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Burns
242 S.W. 295 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Harle
240 S.W. 1004 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)