Neill v. Watson

Texas Supreme Court
Neill v. Watson, 39 Tex. 375 (Tex. 1873)
Walker

Neill v. Watson

Opinion of the Court

Walker, J.

The charges of the court to the jury are correct, and the remittitur entered upon the verdict leaves no ground for complaint against vindictive- damages. Neill was certainly responsible to Watson for all the money he had received on the land, with eight per cent, interest, to say the least, and the judgment is for no more.

The judgment is affirmed.

Aettrmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Andrew Neill v. Richard H. Watson
Status
Published
Syllabus
Where there is a failure of title in a contract of sale of land, the measure of damages is the money actually paid under the contract, with interest at eight per cent, to the time it is recovered.