## Facts

- A.C. Buck leased a pasture in Wise County from H.C. Morrow for five years at $125 per year, for grazing cattle.
- The lease provided that after the second year, if Morrow sold the land, he would compensate Buck for “any or all losses occasioned by the sale.”
- After two years, Morrow sold the land, and Buck was dispossessed before the lease term ended.
- At dispossession, Buck had about 140 head of cattle on the pasture.
- Buck sought to prove he diligently searched for a substitute pasture but could not find one for five months.
- Buck asserted that during the interim he had to hire an extra hand to manage the cattle on the open range at $1.50 per day and that 15 cattle were lost despite reasonable care, valued at $15 per head.
- The trial court limited damages to the difference between contract rent and the rental value for the unexpired term and excluded Buck’s evidence of the extra labor cost and lost cattle.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenant dispossessed before lease expiration is limited to rent-differential damages or may also recover special damages naturally and proximately resulting from loss of the premises.
2. Whether an indemnity clause for “any and all losses occasioned by the sale” allows recovery only for damages that naturally and proximately proceed from the sale and dispossession.
3. Whether evidence of additional herding expenses and lost cattle was improperly excluded as potential special damages.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed and remanded.
- Damages for premature dispossession are not confined to contract rent versus rental value; the tenant may also recover special damages that naturally and proximately result from being deprived of the premises.
- A pasture lessee may recover expenses and losses from holding cattle on the open range while diligently seeking another pasture, if the tenant exercised due care.
- The indemnity clause covers only losses that naturally and proximately proceed from the sale and resulting dispossession.
- The trial court erred by excluding evidence that tended to prove recoverable special damages; causation and the tenant’s care were for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A landlord’s dispossession of a tenant before lease end supports recovery of (1) general damages measured by the rent differential for the unexpired term and (2) special damages that naturally and proximately result from loss of use.
- Consequential losses tied to the leased property’s intended use may be recoverable when shown to be proximately caused, foreseeable in the circumstances, and not attributable to the tenant’s lack of care.
- Contract language promising payment for “any and all losses” caused by a specified event is construed to permit recovery only for damages that naturally and proximately proceed from that event.
- Evidence of claimed special damages should be admitted when it could support a jury finding of proximate causation and reasonable mitigation efforts.

## Conclusion

The court held that a dispossessed tenant may recover both rent-differential damages and additional expenses or losses proximately caused by the dispossession, and that even broad indemnity language is limited to losses that naturally and proximately result from the triggering sale; excluding evidence of such special damages required reversal and a new trial.


Buck v. Morrow, 21 S.W. 398 (Tex. Civ. App. 1893)