DocketNumber: No. 2230.
Citation Numbers: 18 S.W.2d 1118
Judges: HIGGINS, J.
Filed Date: 6/10/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
This case is companion to Galveston, H. S. A. R. Co. v. Potter Floral Confectionery Co. (Tex.Civ.App.)
The damage to the plaintiff's premises was occasioned by overflow, following the heavy rain referred to in the Potter and Todd Cases. This plaintiff's land lies west of the Potter and Todd tracts, but in the same basin or low area, which the Commission of Appeals *Page 1119 in its opinion likened to the bowl of a spoon. In the Potter Case the opinion concludes [16 S.W.2d 1115]:
"The statement of facts is voluminous, and no good purpose can be subserved in attempting to set out the evidence in this opinion. We have, however, carefully read and considered all the testimony; and we are forced to the conclusion that, even if it could be said that the railroad company failed to maintain the necessary culverts and sluices as required by law, the evidence conclusively shows that such failure did not proximately cause any part of the loss which was sustained by the Potter Company."
We have examined the maps and testimony given in the present case, and can see no material difference in the present facts and in the cited cases, and see no reason why the conclusion reached by the Commission in the Potter and Todd Cases should not apply with equal force in the present case.
In accordance with the ruling there made, this case is reversed, and judgment here rendered for appellant.
Reversed and rendered.