Texas & Pacific R'y Co. v. Levi & Bro.
Citations
- 59 Tex. 674
- 2 Tex. L. R. 184
- 1883 Tex. LEXIS 247
Syllabus
<p>1; ¡Negligence — Insurance.— In an action by the owner of cotton against a railway company for damages on account of its loss by the alleged negligence of defendant, the fact that the plaintiff had received the value of the cotton paid by insurance companies-under policies held by the owner, would constitute no defense.. In such case no legal privity exists between the company and the insurer, which would give the former a right to avail itself of a payment made by the lattery following Webber v. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 35 N. J., 413; Clark v. Wilson, 103 Mass., 221, and other cases.</p> <p>2. ¡Negligence — Charge of court. — The action being to recover damages for cotton destroyed by fire from a railway engine, the cotton being on plaintiff's cotton yard near the railway, a charge of the court to the effect that “plaintiffs had a right to place their cotton upon their cotton yard, and in so doing they would not, on that account alone, be guilty of negligence, although the cotton yard was in close proximity to defendant’s road-bed,” was error.</p> <p>3. Negligence.— What constitutes negligence may sometimes be a matter of law; but whether it exists in a given case is a question of fact, for the determination of a jury, in all cases where there is a conflict of evidence or the facts are disputed.</p> <p>4. Damages.— While the ordinary measure of damages for injury to property is the difference between its value before and after the injury, yet in a case of injury to cotton by fire from a railway engine, when it was shown that the cotton in its damaged condition could have found no purchaser at the place where the injury was received, and that it could not be shipped to another place without repacking, such expenses as were incurred in repacking and preparing it for market may be looked to in estimating damages.</p> <p>5. Charge oe court.— See statement of case as to the character of appliances of a railway company required to prevent injury, and set forth in a c
Judges: Stayton
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.