Buck v. Morrow
21 S.W. 398, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 87, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 361 (1893)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a landlord breaches a lease, the tenant may recover not only general damages (the difference between contract rent and market value) but also foreseeable special damages that are the natural and proximate result of the breach.
Facts:
- On May 1, 1886, H. C. Morrow leased a pasture to A. C. Buck for a five-year term, with the understanding it would be used to graze cattle.
- The lease stipulated that if Morrow sold the land after the second year, he would compensate Buck for 'any or all losses occasioned by the sale.'
- After two years, Morrow sold the land and dispossessed Buck.
- At the time of dispossession, Buck had 140 head of cattle in the pasture.
- Buck was unable to find another pasture immediately and his cattle were turned out on the commons for five months.
- During this period, Buck incurred the cost of an extra hand to manage the cattle and lost 15 head of cattle, which could not be found despite a diligent search.
Procedural Posture:
- A. C. Buck sued H. C. Morrow in a trial court to recover damages for breach of a lease agreement.
- At trial, Buck (the plaintiff) offered testimony to prove special damages, including the cost of an extra hand and the value of 15 lost cattle.
- The trial court excluded this testimony, ruling it was immaterial.
- The trial court held that the sole measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the rental value of the pasture for the unexpired term.
- Buck (as appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling on the exclusion of evidence to the Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the measure of damages for a landlord's breach of a lease, which forces a tenant to vacate a pasture used for grazing cattle, include special damages such as the cost of hiring extra labor and the value of lost cattle?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, Associate Justice
Yes. The measure of damages for a landlord's breach of a lease can include special damages that are the natural and proximate result of the breach. The trial court's rule, limiting damages to the difference between the contract price and the rental value, is correct for general damages but is not exhaustive. This general rule rests on the assumption that a tenant can immediately find a substitute property. Where that assumption fails, as it may have here, the rule should not be applied to exclude evidence of other foreseeable losses. Special damages, such as injury to a tenant's stock or the costs incurred to mitigate losses, are recoverable if they were a proximate result of the breach and were reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract. Therefore, the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Buck's extra expenses and lost cattle, as the question of whether these were proximate damages should have been submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying that damages for breach of a lease are not rigidly confined to the property's rental value. It aligns lease-related damages with broader contract law principles, particularly the concept of foreseeable consequential damages established in cases like Hadley v. Baxendale. The ruling empowers tenants to recover for a wider range of actual, foreseeable losses caused by a landlord's breach, especially in situations where simply finding a new property is not an adequate remedy. It shifts the focus from a purely property-based calculation to a more fact-intensive inquiry into the actual and foreseeable consequences of the breach.
Unlock the full brief for Buck v. Morrow