
    MOORE v. ST. LOUIS, S. F. & T. RY. CO.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.
    April 20, 1912.
    Rehearing Denied May 4, 1912.)
    1. Evidence (§• 474) — Opinion Evidence-Competency oe Witnesses.
    A person who has raised, bought, and sold horses in a county for a number of years, and who knows the market value of horses, is competent to testify to the market value of a horse, though he has not sold or known of any one selling a horse of the age, size, and description of the one in controversy.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2196-2219; Dec. Dig. § 474.]
    2. Evidence (§ 594) — 'Weight—Uncontko-verted Evidence.
    Where all the witnesses testifying to the value of a horse placed its market value at a specified sum, and there was no evidence of any less value, the jury could not find a less sum.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2431; Dec. Dig. § 594.]
    Error from Dallas County Court; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
    Action by W. P. Moore against the St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Company. There was a judgment granting insufficient relief, and plaintiff brings error.
    Reformed and rendered.
    Chas.’ F. Clint and D. B. Eades, both of Dallas, for appellant. Andrews, Ball & Streetman, of Houston, and Brooks '& Wor-sham, of Dallas, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rap’r Indexes
    
   RAINEY, C. J.

Suit by plaintiff in error against defendant in error for negligently killing a horse. Plaintiff recovered a judgment for $87.50, from which he appeals.

All the witnesses who testified as to the value of the horse placed his market value at $125, and the recovery should have been for that amount. The witnesses testified that they had not sold or knew of any one selling a horse of the age, size, and description of the one in controversy; but several of them stated that they had been raising, buying, and selling horses in Dallas county for a number of years, and knew the market value of horses, and that the horse was worth $125. The witnesses qualified themselves to testify as to the market value of horses; and that they, in effect, testified that they had not sold or knew of any horse of this exact description being sold does not disqualify them to testify as to the market value.

There was no evidence tending to show that the value of the horse was less than $125, and the jury were not warranted in finding a less sum.

The judgment will be reformed and here rendered for plaintiff in error for the sum of $125.  