
    LANCASTER et al. v. WHITTLE.
    (No. 2087.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    March 6, 1919.)
    1. Carriers <&wkey;228(5)—Injuries to Stock— D AMASES.
    In action against a carrier for injuries to horses, allowance of damages by reason of extra feed and pasture paid for by shipper on account of injuries was not supported by evidence, where there was no testimony what cost to feed horses would have been had they not been injured.
    2. Evidence i&wkey;568(7)—Opinion—Weight.
    In action by shipper against a carrier for injuries to horses and expense for extra feed, testimony of shipper that he would not have been at any expense for feed because he would have sold them to a certain person had they been uninjured was shipper’s opinion merely, and therefore without probative force.
    3. Caeeiers <£=>229(1)—In juey to 'Hobses— Measure oe Damages.
    In action by shipper against a carrier for injuries to horses, shipper cannot recover both the difference in market value of horses and money paid for feed expended while the horses were' recovering from injuries.
    Appeal from District Court, Van Zandt County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Suit by W. C. Whittle against Lancaster and Wight, receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
    Judgment reformed and affirmed.
    Appellee’s suit was against appellants as the receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company for damages he claimed he suffered because of injury to certain horses shipped by him over said company’s line of railway from Et. Worth to Grand Saline. On special issues submitted to them the jury found that the horses were injured as the result of negligence on the' part of appellant, and because of the injury were worth, when they reached Grand Saline, $425 less than they would have been worth but for such injury; and they further found that appellee had to expend $150 more for feed for the horses while they were recovering from injuries they suffered than he would have had to expend had they not been injured. On the findings the court rendered judgment in appellee’s favor against appellants for $575.
    J. A. Germany, of Wichita Falls, for appellants.
    Nat M. Crawford, of Grand Saline, for appellee.
   WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The contention made by appellant that the finding of the jury that there was a difference of $425 in the market value of the horses “at the time and condition in which they arrived at their destination and and what their reasonable market value would have been had they arrived without injury or delay” seems to be based on testimony of appellee that he expected one Stephens, of Oklahoma, to meet him in Grand Saline and buy the horses when they reached that place and that he would not have been able to sell them there had Stephens not ■bought them, because they had no market value there. The contention ignores the testimony of the witness Nance that the horses had a market value in Grand Saline, and that they were worth $700 or $800 less on that market than they would have been worth but for the injury to them, and the testimony of the witnesses Lindsey and Slaton to practically the same effect.

The contention made that the finding of the jury that “the reasonable and necessary expense for extra feed and pasture paid by plaintiff caused by the injury to the horses” was $150 was not warranted by the testimony before them will be sustained. As we view the record there was no testimony showing what the cost to appellee of feeding the horses would have been had they not been injured, and therefore there was no basis for the finding that the extra cost of feeding them, due to the injury they suffered, was the sum found by the jury. The testimony of appellee that he would not have been at any expense for feed for them because he would have sold them to one Stephens had they been uninjured when they reached Grand Saline plainly was his opinion merely, and therefore without, probative force. Henry v. Phillips, 105 Tex. 459, 151 S. W. 533. There was no other evidence that Stephens would have purchased the horses on their arrival at Grand Saline had they been uninjured. It did not even appear that Stephens was in Grand Saline at the time or after the time the horses reached that place. On the contrary, the testimony indicated that he was not then in Grand Saline, and that appellee expected, after the horses reached that place, to go to Emory, where he supposed Stephens was, and take him to Grand Saline to look at the horses. We think the judgment, in so far as it was for the $150 extra expense incurred in feeding the horses, was wrong for another reason also. The amount was included in the sum representing the difference found by the jury in the market value of the horses in Grand Saline had they arrived there uninjured and their market value there injured as they were, and the recovery awarded appellee of both that difference and the $150 paid by him for feed was a double recovery to the extent of said $150. Railway Go. v. Foster, 89 S. W. 450; Railway Go. v. Tuekett, 25 S. W; 150.

The judgment will be so reformed as to adjudge a recovery in appellee’s favor against appellants of $425 (instead of $575), and interest thereon from October 9, 1917, and as so reformed will be affirmed. 
      @=»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     
      <!fc»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     