Sabine & E. T. R'y Co. v. Joachimi
Citations
- 58 Tex. 456
- 1883 Tex. LEXIS 47
Syllabus
<p>1. Damages, measure op.— The plaintiff gave a railway company free right of way across his land, but stipulating that it should not cause an overflow of water on his field, which the road contracted that it would observe by constructing a water-way large enough to prevent overflow. The road violated its contract by constructing an insufficient water-way (which it failed to remedy when cautioned by plaintiff that it would cause him injury), whereby much of plaintiff’s growing crop of vegetables was destroyed and unplanted ground injured, greater labor being required to prepare it for planting by reason of the overflow. In an action for damages against the company, held,</p> <p>(1) The damages to which plaintiff was entitled were such as are recoverable in an action of trespass.</p> <p>(2) The plaintiff was entitled to recover only actual damages.</p> <p>(3) The measure of his actual damage to the growing crops was the difference between the value of such crops immediately after the injury and their value immediately before.</p> <p>(4) The inquiry as to value should be confined to the very time of the destroying flood, and the very place where it occurred, and should not extend to the date of the maturity of the crops nor to the place where it would usually find a market.</p> <p>(5) The measure of damages for injury to the unplanted ground would be the cost and expense of restoring the land to its former condition, and the loss occasioned by being deprived of the use of the same, with interest, No account of loss of profits by consequent delay in getting the crop to market can enter into the estimate.</p> <p>(6) The rule for damages here announced is confined to the exact state of facts made by the record.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that where a defendant participated in the litigation for two years before raising “an avoidance” defense, the defense was waived
- holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the case based upon insufficiency of service of process where this defense was not properly raised until two years into the litigation following participation in discovery
- “[T]he apparent purpose of T[ennessee] R[ule of] C[ivil] P[rocedure] 4.04 [is] to insure that process is served in a manner reasonably calculated to give a party defendant adequate notice of the pending judicial proceedings.”
- concerning the affirmative defense of insufficiency of service of process
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Willie
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.