Clay v. Western Union Tel. Co

• Decision Date: 28 May 1888
• Citation: 81 Ga. 285,6 S.E. 813
• Parties: Clay v. Western Union Tel. Co.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

6 S.E. 813

(81 Ga. 285)

Clay

v.Western Union Tel. Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 28, 1888.

Telegraph Companies—Failure to Deliver Message—Injuria Absque Damno.

An action against a telegraph company lor failure to deliver a message, in which plaintiff was directed to meet the sender on the arrival of a specified train, prepared to render certain services which would have been of profit to plaintiff, cannot be maintained where no actual damage was alleged or in fact sustained.

Error from superior court, Bibb county; Jenkins, Judge.

Action by J. J. Clay against the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover damages for failure to deliver a message. Demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and plaintiff brings error.

S. A. Reid, for plaintiff in error.

Guerry it Hall, for defendants in error.

Blandford, J. It appears that a telegram was sent to Clay, the plaintiff, as follows: "Bullard's, Ga., January 8, 1885. To J. J. Clay: Meet us at E. T. depot on this evening's train prepared to arrange for shipment to Indianapolis my mother-in-law's remains. [Signed] D. G. Hughes." The telegraph company failed to deliver this telegram in time for Clay to meet the train and comply with the directions of the sender. Clay brought his action against the company for damages. We cannot see, from the allegations in the declaration, how Clay was damaged. It does not appear that he suffered any damage. It appears that he lost a mere opportunity or possibility to makesomething. If he had received the telegram, and had appeared at the depot in time to meet the remains, and if Mr. Hughes had declined his services, all that he could have recovered from Hughes would have been his expenses and a proper compensation for his trouble in getting ready to perform these services. Clay did not go to meet the remains, and did not spend anything on this account. He was in the same condition after receiving the telegram that he was before. No loss came to him. It is contended that if he had received the telegram, he would have made a considerable amount of money as profits from services rendered. He might have made it or he might not. As stated, this was merely a possibility. Under the allegations in the declaration we do not think he had any right to recover damages, and that the judge did right to sustain the demurrer to the declaration. As to whether the telegraph company is liable at all for non-delivery of the telegram, we say nothing as to that at this time. There was plenty to...