Gulf, C. & S. F. Tel. Co. v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 20 February 1891
• Citation: 15 S.W. 689
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. TEL. CO. v. RICHARDSON.

15 S.W. 689

GULF, C. & S. F. TEL. CO. v. RICHARDSON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 20, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Wharton county.

J. W. Terry, for appellant. Brady & Ring and Parker & Pearson, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damage for delay in delivering the following telegraphic message: "Thompson Station, July 2, 1888. Dr. S. A. Stone, Richmond, Texas: My child is very sick. Come at once. [Signed] W. J. RICHARDSON." The evidence conflicts as to the exact hour when the message was sent or delivered, — plaintiff's evidence tending to show that it was delivered to the defendant's agent between 3 and 4 o'clock P. M., and the defendant's that it was not received by it before 5 o'clock P. M. The evidence indicates that it was received by the defendant's agent at Richmond about 30 minutes after 5 o'clock P. M., and was delivered to Dr. Stone about 9 o'clock P. M. The evidence shows that one train going to Thompson's Station, near which the plaintiff lived, left Richmond a few minutes before 6 o'clock P. M., and another one a few minutes after 10 o'clock P. M. Dr. Stone testified that if he had received the message in time he would have left on the first train, and, if not in time for that, then on the second one; but that he did not receive it in time for him to take either, and that he went at 6 o'clock the next morning, and arrived at plaintiff's residence too late to be of any benefit to his child, who was sick with brain fever. There was considerable evidence with regard to the distance that Dr. Stone lived from the depot, and to his means of getting there, and as to why he did not take the train leaving Richmond about 10 o'clock P. M., after he had received the dispatch. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,000. Appellant complains of the charge given by the court in the following respects: "(1) That the defendant would be liable to plaintiff for its failure to use reasonable diligence to deliver the dispatch for such sum as the jury might believe he should receive as compensation for mental suffering caused him by such failure. (2) That, although a telegraphic message is neither prepared, delivered, nor paid for in person by the one for whose benefit it is sent, yet if it be prepared, delivered, and paid for by others acting for him at his special request, the contract is complete, and the telegraph company, having knowledge of its urgency and importance, is liable in damages for negligence in its transmission and delivery. If, therefore, you believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant undertook to transmit and deliver the telegraphic message in question, and that if by the use of reasonable diligence it would have been delivered in time for Dr. S. A. Stone to have visited the...