Harrington v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1915 |
| Parties | D. C HARRINGTON et al., Respondents, v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. James H. Austin, Special Judge.
REVERSED.
Judgment reversed.
New & Krauthoff, Edwin Camack and George H. Fearons for appellant.
Glen R Donaldson for respondents.
--Plaintiffs begun an action against defendant before a justice of the peace, by filing a written statement claiming damages for negligently transmitting and delivering to them a telegram concerning the price of grain. They recovered judgment before the justice and also in the circuit court on appeal.
In April, 1908, plaintiffs shipped a car of grain from a point in Minnesota to the Rothschild Grain Company in Chicago, Illinois. The grain arrived at the latter place on April 25th and that company immediately wrote a telegram to plaintiffs offering seventy cents a bushel and delivered it to defendant for transmission over its line. In sending it over the wire, or in taking it off the wire, defendant added the word "nine" after the word "seventy," thus making it read as an offer of seventy-nine cents per bushel. On Sunday the 26th plaintiff telegraphed to Rothschild an acceptance of "seventy-nine cents." On next day, the 27th, Rothschild telegraphed that the offer was seventy cents. Being unable to understand the offer of seventy-nine and then of seventy cents, plaintiffs testified they "immediately took it up with Rothschilds by letter." Then Rothschild, on Monday the 27th telegraphed plaintiffs that the grain was "worth seventy will book that basis or turn over, advise." Then, on same day, Rothschild telegraphed plaintiffs as follows: "Seventy cents Chicago basis as wired Saturday, best can do, advise." One of plaintiffs testified that they did not receive that telegram. But whether they did or not, they received the other one of the same day, and allege in their statement that they were advised of the error on that day, Monday the 27th. Then on Wednesday, the 29th, Rothschild again telegraphed plaintiffs as follows: "Our bid on consigned car was seventy, if not acceptable give positive instructions quick." This was evidently in response to plaintiffs' letter. But plaintiffs took no action for three or four days and then authorized Rothschild to sell for seventy cents. But the price had then declined to sixty-three cents and plaintiffs were compelled to sell at that figure involving a loss, as they claim of seven cents a bushel as well as $ 5 "trackage."
Plaintiffs did not suffer any damage merely by reason of the first telegram stating an offer of seventy-nine cents and accepting it, for there had been no such offer. If, on account of such mistake, they had been induced to do something, or to abstain from something, to their detriment, there would be damage. But to be merely informed of an offer that had not been made and to accept that offer, is of no consequence.
Plaintiffs source of damage, if any, was in not being correctly informed of the offer of seventy cents, so that, by accepting it, they would have made the sale at that price. And that is the ground relied upon in their statement; for they charge the grain was worth seventy cents which they could have gotten, but failed to get it "on account of the delay caused by the erroneous transmission," whereby, because of a falling market, they sold at sixty-three cents "a loss of seven cents a bushel," making "a total loss due to said decline of $ 129.05, and a trackage charge of $ 5."
Now the facts of the case show that as early as the 27th plaintiffs knew, and so allege, that the real offer was seventy cents. Yet they did not accept it. Finally, on the 29th the offer of seventy...
To continue reading
Request your trial