Jones v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Decision Date01 January 1883
PartiesJONES v. WESTERN U. TEL. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

M. W Benjamin, for plaintiff.

U. M. &amp G. B. Rose, for defendant.

CALDWELL J.

The plaintiff delivered to the defendant at Little Rock, for transmission to St. Louis, a message written on one of the half-rate night message blanks containing the usual printed conditions. The following is a copy of the printed conditions and the message written thereunder:

'THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
'Half-Rate Message.
'The business of telegraphing is liable to errors and delays, arising from causes which cannot at all times be guarded against, including sometimes negligence of servants and agents whom it is necessary to employ. Most errors and delays may be prevented by repetition, for which, during the day, half price extra is charged in addition to the full tariff rates.
'The Western Union Telegraph Company will receive messages, to be sent without repetition during the night, for delivery not earlier than the morning of the next ensuing business day, at one half the usual day rates, but in no case for less than twenty-five cents tolls for a single message, and upon the express condition that the sender will agree that he will not claim damages for errors or delays, or for non-delivery of such messages, happening from any cause, beyond a sum equal to ten times the amount paid for transmission; and that no claim for damages shall be valid unless presented in writing within thirty days after sending the message.
'Messages will be delivered free within the established free delivery limits of the terminal office. For delivery at a greater distance a special charge will be made to cover the cost of such delivery, the sender hereby guarantying payment thereof.

'The Company will be responsible to the limit of its lines only, for messages destined beyond, but will act as the sender's agent to deliver the message to connecting companies or carriers, if desired, without charge and without liability.

'A. R. BREWER, Secretary

NORVIN GREEN, President. 'Feb. 24, 1882.

'Send the following half-rate message, subject to the above terms, which are agreed to: 'To E. A. Kent & Co. 318 Chamber of Commerce, St. Louis, Mo.: Buy ten June wheat Chicago account Boyd and five account Clark. Quote June New York.

T. H. JONES.

'Read the notice and agreement at the top.'

When the message was delivered to the plaintiff's brokers in St. Louis the word 'cheap' had been substituted for 'Chicago,' and the plaintiff alleges that by reason of this mistake he was damaged to the amount of $768.75.

The defendant interposes three defenses: (1) Contributory negligence, in this, that the word 'Chicago' in the message was so badly written as to be easily mistaken for the word 'cheap;' (2) the printed conditions on the blank on which the message was written, to the effect that the company would not be liable for damages for errors or delays or for non-delivery of such message happening from any cause, beyond a sum equal to ten times the amount paid for transmission; and (3) that the message was intended to procure the persons to whom it was addressed to buy in the market what are commonly known as 'futures,' and had relation, therefore, to gambling transactions out of which no valid or binding agreement or legal obligation could arise against any one. In the view the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Thos. G. Hardie & Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 24 June 1925
    ... ... defendant on notice of its worth to the parties; nor is there ... any evidence of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the ... part of the defendant. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co., ... supra; Primrose v. Tel. Co., supra; Jones ... ...
  • Poor v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 11 June 1917
    ... ... sufficient to make out a prima-facie case of at least the ... "ordinary negligence" spoken of by the Federal ... courts, for which the stipulation on the back of the telegram ... limiting liability provides. [Williams v. Western Union ... Telegraph Co., 203 F. 140, 144; Jones v. Western ... Union Telegraph Co., 18 F. 717.] ...          Since ... the case is governed wholly by the Federal rules of decision, ... and since they uphold the validity of the stipulations set ... out on the back of the telegraph blank limiting liability for ... incorrect ... ...
  • Western Union Telegraph Company v. Short
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 18 October 1890
    ...285; 13 A. & E. Corp. Cas., 585; 78 Pa. St., 238; 5 S.C. 377; 19 S.C. 84; 11 Neb. 87; 89 N.C. 334; 66 Cal. 579; 52 Tex. 283; 18 Hun, 157; 18 F. 717; 14 F. 710; Tel. Cas., 690. These cases establish: 1, that a stipulation limiting liability in cases of unrepeated messages is valid; and 2, th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT