Bennett v. Western Union Telgraph Co.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1906
• Citation: 106 N.W. 13,129 Iowa 607
• Parties: C. S. BENNETT, Appellant, v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

106 N.W. 13

129 Iowa 607

C. S. BENNETT, Appellant, v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellee

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 10, 1906

Appeal from Woodbury District Court.-- HON. JOHN F. OLIVER, Judge.

ACTION at law for damages for failure to deliver telegram. From judgment upon a directed verdict in favor of the defendant the plaintiff appeals.-- Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Milchrist & Scott, for appellant.

Wright & Call, for appellee.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.--

At and for some time prior to the transaction involved in this litigation the plaintiff was a resident of Sioux City, Iowa and was the owner of a quarter section of land situated in Lyon county, Iowa. About October 28, 1903, the plaintiff was in Lyon county, where he met and had some talk with one R. B Moon as to the price at which the land could be bought. No agreement was made at this meeting, and the conversation concluded with a statement by Moon that he would let plaintiff know of his conclusion within a few days. On November 2, 1903, Moon wrote and delivered to the defendant's agent at Rock Rapids, to be transmitted to plaintiff at Sioux City, a message in the following words: "Rock Rapids, Iowa Nov. 2, 1903. To C. S. Bennett, Sioux City, Iowa: Will fifty-five per acre buy northeast quarter fourteen, one hundred forty-five. Answer quick. R. B. Moon." This message was not delivered for a period of at least two months, although plaintiff claims to have called at defendant's Sioux City office and made inquiry therefor.

He testifies that, had he received the message promptly, he would have answered in the affirmative, and that Moon was then ready and willing and would have bought the land, but that by reason of the delay in the transmission of the message the sale was lost, to his damage in the sum of $ 1,600. Moon also testifies that at the time of sending the inquiry he was ready, willing, and able to buy the land at $ 55 per acre, and would have done so had plaintiff signified his readiness to sell at that price. There was evidence tending to show that defendant was negligent in the matter of delivering the message.

The testimony having been submitted, the court sustained a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground, among others, that the damages sought to be recovered are too remote and speculative. If this objection to a recovery by plaintiff is well taken, as we think it is, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds of the motion. It will be observed that the telegram contains no offer or proposition of purchase, and, had it been duly delivered, plaintiff could not have framed or sent any reply which would have constituted a contract obligating Moon to purchase the land. Had plaintiff received and answered the telegram in the affirmative, Moon was under no obligation to carry the negotiations any farther, or to take the land at any price, and a contract upon that basis could have been completed only by another telegram from Moon signifying his acceptance. In short, the message was simply one of inquiry, which might, if duly delivered, have opened up a correspondence resulting in a sale of plaintiff's land; but that result was so remote, was subject to so many contingencies, that the alleged damages cannot fairly be said to be the direct or proximate result of the negligence...