DAMAGES. 647 



resulting from the killing of animals by the negligence of rail- 

 road companies. Under the statutes of Missouri, Colorado, 

 Georgia, Kansas and Illinois, interest is not allowed. It is 

 otherwise in Minnesota, Arkansas and Alabama from the 

 time of the injury, and in Wisconsin from the commence- 

 ment of the action." "^ But in Georgia the jury may add 

 to the value of the animals a sum equal to the interest on 

 such value, finding and returning it, however, as damages, 

 not as interest.*''* In Ohio, also, interest is allowed from the 

 date of the accident,*'^ and in Utah from the time of insti- 

 tuting the suit.*^® In Iowa it has been held that where the 

 statute makes the company liable for double the damages the 

 owner of the animal has sustained, interest on the value of 

 it is not recoverable.*^^ And in Kansas and Texas it has 

 been held that no interest can be recovered in a statutory 

 action unless the statute provides for it.*'* But in the later 

 Texas cases this rule is not followed and interest is allowed.*'* 

 The constitutionality of statutes giving double damages for 

 stock killed through the negligence of railroad companies has 

 been generally sustained:**** though there are decisions that 

 deny it.**^ A statute absolutely allowing double damages 



"' I Suth. Dams., 2d cd., § 355. 



See Meyer v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 542; Toledo, P. & W. R. 

 Co. V. Johnston, 74 111. 83; Varco v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 30 Minn. 

 38; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Biggs, 50 Ark. 169; Ala. G. S. R. Co. 

 V. Mc Alpine, 75 Ala. 113; Ga. Pac. R. Co. v. Fullerton, 79 id. 298. 



See also the New York and Michigan cases cited in § 144, infra. 



"' Western & A. R. Co. v. Brown, 102 Ga. 13. 



"' Bait. & O. R. Co. V. Schultz, 43 O. St. 270. 



-"Woodland v. Un. Pac. R. Co. (Utah), 26 Pac. Rep. 298. 



"' Brentner v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 68 la. 530. 



"'Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Gabbert, 34 Kan. 132; Houston & T. 

 C. R. Co. V. Muldrow, 54 Tex. 233. 



-"Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. Rep. 

 745; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wedel (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 id. 1030; Tex. 

 & Pac R. Co. V. Scrivener (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 id- 649- 



"" See I Rap. & Mack Dig. Ry. Law 93- 



™ See Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37; Denver & R. G. R. Go. 

 V. Outcalt, 2 Colo. App. 395. 



