Tucker v. Hamlin

Citations

• 60 Tex. 171
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 292

Syllabus

<p>1. Measure op damages.— The measure of damages for the wrongful seizure and conversion of goods is their value at the place of seizure on the day of their conversion; not what might be realized if they were retailed in small quantities and at different times. Evidence of their value, if retailed, tending in its nature to confuse and incline the jury to render a verdict for an excessive amount, will, if excepted to, when such is its result, be cause for new trial.</p> <p>3. Same.—• The practice of admitting improper evidence, and then attempting to correct its effect by instructions, again disapproved; following Gulf, Col. & S. F. R’y Co. v. Levy, 59 Tex., 543. Even when the court, in the charge, lays down a correct rule for estimating damages, evidence only proper if a different rule should prevail, tends, in its nature, to confuse, and its effect upon the verdict cannot be measured.</p> <p>3. Evidence.— A conversation between a witness and third persons, not in the presence of a party to the suit, against whom the substance of such conversation is sought to be used, is not admissible in evidence.</p> <p>4. Charge op court — Fraud.— See statement of case for charge of court on fraud held not to be erroneous.</p> <p>5. Charge op court.— It is not error to refuse a special charge which has been substantially given in different language in the general charge.</p>