[2] In view of the fact that we have conIcluded that there was reversible error, and since there may be another trial of the case, we think it proper to say that appellants are right in their contention that, if the crops had not matured and were not ready for harvesting at the time of the overflow, the charge of the court should be so framed as that the expense of cultivation should be taken into consideration as well as that of harvesting. We also suggest that the charge should guard against permitting the jury to assess any damages for permanent injuries for any period for which the damages may appear to be barred by limitation. The criticism, leveled against the court's submission of this issue, as to the form of the question, appears to be well taken.

[3] Appellants also raise the point that the trial amendment alleged damages for deprivation of the use of the land in the year 1920, and also for permanent injury to the land for the same period, which would amount to a claim of double damages. If the point be conceded, it does not affect the result of this appeal, since the jury did not make any allowance for deprivation of the use of the land for the year stated. Indeed, no such issue was submitted to the jury. The recovery was only for the crops during the year 1919, and permanent injury to the land. It has not been shown that these recoveries were overlapping, nor that the items constituted double damages. Under the principles announced in Railway Co. v. Anderson, 79 Tex. 427, 15 S. W. 484, 23 Am. St. Rep. 350, and Clark v. Dyer, 81 Tex. 339, 16 S. W. 1061, we think these elements were separate and distinct, and do not constitute the recovery of double damages. These cases have been cited with approval in numerous cases collated in Rose's Texas Notes.

[4] Appellants complain of the refusal of the trial court to sustain certain special exceptions to parts of the petition and plaintiff's

the failure of the petition to advise defendants what character of crops it was claimed plaintiff was deprived from raising by virtue of the overflow and washing of his land. We sustain the contention, and, in view of the uncertain testimony as to the amount of the damages to the crops, we think it was reversible error to overrule the exception. The question is a close one, but we are of the opinion that plaintiff should have been required to plead the character of crops he was prevented from raising and the character of crops which it was alleged were damaged. This information was within the knowledge of plaintiff, and could readily have been given. It was proper that defendants should be appraised thereof, in order to properly prepare their defenses and procure their testimony in support thereof.

[5] There is a similar complaint at the refusal of the trial court to sustain exceptions to the pleading claiming damages for permanent injuries to the land. The specific point is that the pleadings did not apprise defendants of the area or quantity of land alleged to have been permanently injured. As we view the petition and trial amendment, the claim was for permanent injury to the entire land. Regardless of the proof on the subject, the averments were sufficient, as against the exceptions, to admit proof of only partial injury to the land.

All other assignments have been carefully considered, and are overruled.

For the error indicated, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded, unless appellee should see fit, within ten days from this date, to enter a remittitur of $75, the amount of his recovery for damages to the crops. If this item should be remitted, the judgment will be reformed and affirmed for the balance of the recovery. Reversed and remanded.

Supplemental Opinion.

The error for which this case was reversed and remanded related to appellee's claim for damages to his crops. We indicated in the original opinion that, if this item should be remitted, the judgment would be reformed and affirmed for the balance of the recovery. This the appellee has now voluntarily done. The remittitur being on file, such item will be eliminated, and the judgment affirmed for the balance.

Reformed and affirmed.