Gahan v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

• Decision Date: 02 January 1894
• Citation: 59 F. 433
• Parties: GAHAN v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

59 F. 433

GAHAN v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

January 2, 1894

Statement by WILLIAMS, District Judge:

Plaintiff's brother Thomas Gahan, on January 14, 1891, filed at Chicago Ill., for transmission to plaintiff, at South St. Paul Minn., paying the tolls thereon, the following message:

'Chicago January 14, 1891.

'To Michael Gahan, South St. Paul: Your brother Wm. Gahan is dead. Come at once. Will be buried Friday.

[Signed]

'Thomas Gahan.'

The message was transmitted to St. Paul, and there lost, in some way not explained, and not forwarded to its destination, and plaintiff was therefore not apprised of the death of his brother until some days after his burial. Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for mental anguish suffered on account of the negligent failure to deliver the message. The action is ex contractu, the complaint alleging that Thomas Gahan, who sent the message and paid the tolls,--40 cents,--did so as the agent of plaintiff. Defendant objected to the introduction of evidence as to mental anguish, and, at the close of the case, moved for an instruction to the jury to return a verdict for defendant.

Jos. A. Schroll, for plaintiff.

C. M. Ferguson, for defendant.

WILLIAMS, District Judge, (after stating the facts.)

The case is somewhat new, and yet it has been pretty well adjudicated, and, outside of the decision of Judge Maxey (Beasley v. Telegraph Co., 39 F. 181,) every time it has been touched by the federal courts, it has been clearly and unequivocally held that the action cannot be maintained. The state courts have pretty generally passed upon the question, and, outside of the cases cited by counsel for plaintiff, I do not think you will find another state court that upholds that doctrine. A large majority of the state courts have held that the action cannot be maintained, and that no recovery can be had. Counsel has read from the Carolina report, (Young v. Telegraph Co., 107 N.C. 370, 11 S.E. 1044,) and I think that is the strongest the case can be put; and that is very much in consonance with the sentiment which must arise, to a large extent, in the breasts of all men; but, when you come to analyze it, I think the best you can say is that this sentiment has carried away the better judgment of the court. There is nothing to maintain it, and it is not, as a principle of law, sound in any respect. Further...