Hughes v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1894 |
| Citation | 19 S.E. 100,114 N.C. 70 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Craven county; Bynum, Judge.
Action by F. W. Hughes against the Western Union Telegraph Company for damages caused by a mistake in transmitting a message. There was a judgment for plaintiff for 50 cents, from which he appeals. Affirmed.
Where the incorrect transmission of a telegram caused plaintiff to sell shares of stock for which he received the market value his damages are limited to the cost of the message, though a few days later he was compelled, in order to buy shares of the same stock, to pay an advanced price.
M. De W. Stevenson and Busbee & Busbee, for appellant.
Strong & Strong, for appellee.
The plaintiff's allegation is to the effect that the defendant made a mistake in the transmission of a telegram directed to him, and relating to the stock of the American Cotton-Oil Company. He says that, if the message had been delivered to him as his correspondent wrote it, he would not have sold 500 shares of that stock which he then owned, but that, being misled and deceived by the false information thus negligently furnished him by the defendant, he did sell those shares of stock. If, because of defendant's negligence the plaintiff had disposed of his property at less than its value, there would be some foundation for the plaintiff's demand for damages above the cost of the telegram. But it appears that he got for his stock, when he sold it, "the market value" thereof. The market value of such property, nothing else appearing, is its value. It cannot be said that one suffers damage when induced to exchange his property for its value in money. He has, after the exchange what to the law appears to be the exact equivalent for that which he has sold. But the plaintiff says that this class of stock advanced in price soon after he was so induced to sell and that he bought 300 shares at the advanced rate. The defendant cannot, we think, be held liable for this conduct of the plaintiff. It did not induce him to buy. As we have said, he suffered, it appears, no damage by reason of being induced by the erroneous message to sell. We cannot indulge in speculation as to what might or might not have happened if the telegram had been correctly transmitted. To do so would be to concern ourselves about speculative damages, which are not recoverable. Pegram v....
To continue reading
Request your trial