55 Tex. 308 (Tex. 1881), 2737, So Relle v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Docket Nº:2737.
Citation:55 Tex. 308
Opinion Judge:WATTS, J. COM. APP.
Party Name:C. O. SO RELLE v. W. U. TELEGRAPH CO.
Attorney:Edward Collier, Seth Shephard and C. O. So Relle, for appellant. Likens & Stewart, for appellee.
Case Date:June 14, 1881
Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Page 308

55 Tex. 308 (Tex. 1881)




No. 2737.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 14, 1881

APPEAL from Lee. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarlane.

Suit brought against appellee on the 24th day of June, 1874, to recover $50,000 damages, occasioned, as claimed in the petition, by the willful neglect or failure of appellee to transmit and deliver, within a reasonable time, the following telegraphic message:

" GIDDINGS, Jan. 16, 1874, A. D.


Office over Miller's Stable:

Your mother is dead; come on night train. Conveyance at T. Wroes.

(Signed) WM. M. SCALLORN."
It is in substance alleged in the petition, that appellant's mother died on the 16th day of January, 1874, near the town of Giddings; that on that day the message was prepared and delivered to the appellee's agent at Giddings by a near relative of appellant, for him and for his use and benefit; that appellee received the usual compensation, and undertook and agreed to promptly transmit and deliver to appellant, at his place of business in the city of Austin, said message; and that if the same had been transmitted and delivered, he would have been thereby enabled to be present at the funeral rites of his mother, and pay to her the last tribute of respect; that the appellee willfully failed and neglected to transmit and deliver the message in a reasonable time, and that it was several days after said date before it was delivered to him, notwithstanding he was during all that time constantly at his place of business in said city of Austin; that his said place of business is specified in said message, and was well known to appellee's agents in the city of Austin. And that by reason of said willful fault or neglect of appellee's agents to transmit and deliver said message in a reasonable time, he was prevented from being present at the funeral services of his mother, and in seeing that her remains were properly cared for. It was also alleged that appellee was guilty of gross negligence in not transmitting and delivering the message; and that he was injured and damaged thereby in the sum of $50,000. The appellee answered by general and special exceptions to the petition, chiefly on the ground that the same showed no cause of action. The exceptions were sustained and the cause dismissed, the usual judgment in such cases being rendered....

To continue reading