24 S.W. 995 | Tex. App. | 1894
The questions presented in the motion for rehearing were all considered by the court in the original disposition of the case. There is only one question presented by this motion which we desire to further notice. The judgment below was based upon an action against appellant seeking to recover for the value of an animal killed upon appellant's track by being run over by a locomotive. The question here is, whether the judgment of the court below is erroneous for giving interest on the value of the animal killed.
The statute that authorizes a recovery against railways for the value of animals killed by being run over, we do not regard as being in the nature of a penalty, but the purpose is simply to declare a liability against the railways for acts committed under certain circumstances for which they might be held liable at common law if they were guilty of negligence. The statute makes the railway liable for killing animals when it fails to fence its track — that is, if the killing occurs at a point where it may fence — and also holds them liable for their negligence. If the statute was simply in the nature of a penalty, interest ordinarily would not be allowed. But one of the objects of the statute being to compensate the *102
owner for the loss of his animal, we can not see any good reason why he may not, as a part of that compensation, recover interest on its value, as is permitted in nearly all cases of trover, trespass, tort, and conversion, when the owner has been by the wrongful act of the defendant deprived of the value of his property. This principle is well illustrated in the case of Houston Texas Central Railway Company v. Jackson,
The case of Houston Texas Central Railway Company v. Muldrow,
In the case of International Great Northern Railway Company v. Cocke,
Motion overruled.
