Cole v. Tucker
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Cass. This was an action by the appellant for maliciously killing a mule, tiie property of the plaintiff. 'She alleged that she had been greatly damaged by tlie loss of the services of the said mule, and of the time spent in obtaining the service, and making the purchase of another.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass. This was an action by the appellant for maliciously killing a mule, tiie property of the plaintiff. 'She alleged that she had been greatly damaged by tlie loss of the services of the said mule, and of the time spent in obtaining the service, and making the purchase of another. The defendant pleaded that the mule was within his inclosure, damaging his crops; that the fence was a lawful one, except at one panel; and that lie could not, by any other means, remove the mnle from the premises; and that defendant, after the said trespass was committed and before the institution of…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Oh. J.
The language of the second assignment would lead to the conclusion that the court in the charge stated the general proposition that in this State vindictive or exemplary damages were not recoverable. The terms of the charge are that in actions for killing stock in inclosures the true measure of damages in Texas was full compensation to the party for the injury that he had suffered, and that vindictive or exemplary damages were not recoverable.
The proposition was again repeated in general terms that no vindictive or exemplary damages could be allowed by the jury, but this must…
2Cited by46 opinions
- Lunsford v. MorrisTexas Supreme Court · 1988
- Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LPTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Hofer v. LavenderTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- H. F. & E. D. Craddock v. GoodwinTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- City of Ingleside v. KneuperCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1989
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.