Mo. Pac. R'y Co. v. Hewett

2 Wilson 205
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 21, 1884
DocketNo. 3235
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 2 Wilson 205 (Mo. Pac. R'y Co. v. Hewett) 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
Mo. Pac. R'y Co. v. Hewett, 2 Wilson 205 (Tex. Ct. App. 1884).

Opinion

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 273. Damages; measure of, in action against carrier for goods lost; interest; rental value of goods lost. Hewett brought this suit against the railroad company to recover , $58, the alleged value of certain household goods lost by said company, while in transit on its line of railroad,, and for $50 rental value of a sewing machine, which was among said lost goods. He recovered judgment for $78 [206]*206and costs. The case was tried by the judge without a jury, and he allowed Hewett the full value of the goods lost, $58 and $20 as the rental value of the sewing machine. Held. This suit was not to recover damages for delay in "transporting arjd delivering the goods, but was to recover damages for failing entirely to deliver the goods. If it had been to recover damages for delay, Hewitt would have been entitled, under the evidence, to recover the rental value of his sewing machine during such delay. But in this suit such rental value cannot be estimated as damages. The measure of his damage, in this suit, is the fair market value, at the point of destination, of the goods lost, with legal interest thereon from the date when the goods should have been delivered. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 67, 206, 207, 1254; Fowler v. Davenport, 21 Tex. 627.] Ordinarily, in suits to recovér damages for breach of contract, interest is not recoverable as a part of the damages', but, under the circumstances of this case, the goods being for the personal use of the plaintiff, and not for sale in the market, and the recovery therefor having been delayed at the instanco of the defendant, under promise made to search for and deliver the goods, interest on the value of the same should be estimated as part of the damages.

June 21, 1884.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois v. Fuller
892 S.W.2d 848 (Texas Supreme Court, 1995)
People v. Potwora
397 N.E.2d 361 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Winters v. Campbell
137 S.E.2d 188 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1964)
Fairmont Athletic Club v. Bingham
61 Misc. 419 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)
Scott v. Donald
165 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1897)
West v. Cabell
153 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Barry v. Edmunds
116 U.S. 550 (Supreme Court, 1886)
Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. Hoeflich
62 Md. 300 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1884)
Beckwith v. Bean
98 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Houston & Great Northern Railroad v. Randall
50 Tex. 254 (Texas Supreme Court, 1878)
Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway
57 Me. 202 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1869)
Taylor v. . Church
8 N.Y. 452 (New York Court of Appeals, 1853)
M'Gary v. President of Lafayette
12 La. 668 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1846)
M'Bride v. M'Laughlin
5 Watts 375 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1836)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Wilson 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mo-pac-ry-co-v-hewett-texapp-1884.