Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi
299 S.W. 687 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover pre-judgment interest as an element of damages, the damages claimed in the pleadings must be stated as an amount sufficient to cover both the principal loss at the time of the injury and the interest accrued from that date to the time of trial.
Facts:
- K. Kishi owned a three-fourths undivided interest in a 50-acre tract of land located in the Orange oil field.
- Humble Oil & Refining Company owned the remaining one-fourth interest in the same tract of land.
- Humble Oil entered upon the land, denying Kishi's right of co-tenant entry and effectively ousting him from the property.
- As a result of Humble Oil's actions, Kishi was prevented from leasing his interest in the land, which destroyed its market value for lease purposes at that time.
Procedural Posture:
- K. Kishi (appellee) sued Humble Oil & Refining Company (appellant) in the district court of Orange county for damages arising from trespass.
- The case was first appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed a prior judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted a writ of error and referred the case to the Commission of Appeals.
- The Commission of Appeals, on rehearing, affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision to remand, but with specific instructions to the district court to only ascertain the 'amount of damages'.
- On remand, the district court limited the trial to the single issue of damages, over Humble Oil's objection.
- A jury found the market value of Kishi's interest to be $562.50 per acre.
- The trial court calculated the total damages and added interest from the date of the trespass to the date of judgment, resulting in a total award of $35,437.50.
- Humble Oil & Refining Company appealed that judgment 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:
Did the trial court err in awarding interest as damages from the date of the trespass to the date of judgment when the plaintiff's petition prayed for a specific sum as damages and did not plead for a total amount sufficient to cover that sum plus pre-judgment interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Walker, J.
Yes. The trial court erred in awarding pre-judgment interest because it was not properly supported by the plaintiff's pleadings. Interest recoverable as damages is not interest 'eo nomine' (by that name), but is itself an element of damages. Therefore, a plaintiff's petition must claim a total damage amount large enough to cover the underlying loss plus any pre-judgment interest sought. Here, Kishi's petition only claimed damages in the specific amount of the leasehold's value ($150,000) and did not allege a larger sum that could encompass interest. Furthermore, by allowing the issue of 'amount of damages' to be submitted to the jury without requesting a specific submission on the issue of interest, Kishi waived his claim to it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement in Texas law for the recovery of pre-judgment interest as damages. It establishes that a general prayer for interest is insufficient; the total ad damnum clause (the statement of damages) must be high enough to cover both the principal amount of the loss and the accrued interest. This prevents a plaintiff from recovering a total judgment that exceeds the amount stated in their pleadings, providing defendants with clear notice of their maximum potential liability. The ruling also underscores the principle of waiver, reminding litigants they must ensure all components of their damage claims, including interest, are properly submitted to the fact-finder or risk forfeiting them.
