Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Matthews

23 S.W. 90, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 493, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 302
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 22, 1893
DocketNo. 261.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 23 S.W. 90 (Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Matthews) 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
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Matthews, 23 S.W. 90, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 493, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 302 (Tex. Ct. App. 1893).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

The court erred in the portion of the charge defining the measure of damages. The correct measure was not the difference in the value of the land caused by the burning of the grass, because that was temporary. Railway v. Horne, 69 Texas, 644.

*494 The measure of damages is the value of the posts and of the grass-destroyed and the injury caused to the value of the land by the destruction of the turf.

Evidence of the value of the grass as hay as well as for pasturage purposes should be admitted for the consideration of the jury, and from a-showing of all the purposes for which plaintiff’s grass was useful and valuable, the jury should determine what its value was at the time at which and state in which it stood when burned. If the grass possessed a market value, that should be the criterion. But if, as is probable, there was no market value, considering it as useful for pasturage, its value when thus used should be taken.

Any evidence tending to show what the grass was worth when put to any of the uses for which it was valuable should be admitted.

Evidence as to any temporary diminution of the value of the land resulting from the burning of the grass should be excluded.

Reversed and remcmded.

Delivered June 22, 1893.

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

Related

Shell Pipe Line Corp. v. Svrcek
37 S.W.2d 297 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
White River Sheep Co. v. Barkley
288 P. 1029 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1930)
Bellamy v. Haag
20 S.W.2d 847 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Harris
216 S.W. 430 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co. v. Ernst
210 S.W. 603 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Brune
181 S.W. 547 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Risse v. Collins
87 P. 1006 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 S.W. 90, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 493, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulf-colorado-santa-fe-railway-co-v-matthews-texapp-1893.