Jacobs v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.

• Decision Date: 26 December 1898
• Citation: 24 So. 535,76 Miss. 278
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SAMUEL JACOBS v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO

24 So. 535

76 Miss. 278

SAMUEL JACOBS v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 26, 1898

November 1898

FROM the circuit court of Washington county, HON. F. A MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Samuel Jacobs, the plaintiff in the court below, now appellant, sued the Postal Telegraph Cable Co., the defendant and appellee for damages, charging unreasonable delay in the delivery of a telegram sent him from Port Gibson, Miss. to Leland, Miss November 25, 1897, addressed to plaintiff in care of J. W Tate. The telegram was in these words: "Wait. I mail letter this day with particulars." The declaration averred that the message was duly received by defendant's operator at Leland on the day of its date; that plaintiff's place of business was well known to defendant's said operator, and was located only one quarter of a mile from defendant's office in Leland; that the message was not delivered until November 27, 1897; that because of the delay plaintiff lost a situation which would have paid him $ 1, 200 and board for one year, and damages therefor were demanded, and besides the declaration demands $ 25 statutory penalty as provided by code 1892, § 4326.

Defendant demurred to the declaration, assigning as causes of demurrer that the special damages claimed were speculative, and that the defendant was not informed of the importance of the message.

The court held that plaintiff was not entitled to the special damages claimed, and, the statutory damages alone being below the jurisdiction of the court, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit.

Reversed, demurrer overruled and remanded.

Skinner & Bogen, for appellant.

That the declaration contains sufficient facts for the court to proceed to trial, we do not think can be doubted. Code of 1892, § 671; Gibson - Moore Manufacturing Co. v. Meek, 71 Miss. 614; code of 1892, § 4326.

If the agent of the company could read, he certainly was informed of what the message contained. Unless an idiot, he knew that the message referred to a letter that was to be written that day and that it was intended for appellant to wait for the receipt of that letter.

While we contend that it is not at all necessary that the dispatch should disclose its importance to the company in order to make it liable to a party injured by its gross negligence, still we can hardly conceive of a sentence that expresses more plainly upon its face the object and intent and meaning than this: "Wait. I mail letter this day with full particulars. "

We think the plaintiff's right to recover is fully established, and we respectfully submit to this court the following authorities: Alexander v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 66 Miss. 161; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Allen, 66 Miss. 549; Alexander v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 67 Miss. 386; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Clifton & Eckford, 68 Miss. 307; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. McLaurin, 70 Miss. 26; Fairley v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 73 Miss. 6; 3 Sutherland on Damages, 295, 298.

J. R. McIntosh, for appellee.

The plaintiff in this action sued because of the failure to deliver, within a reasonable time, a telegram, in these words: "Wait. I mail letter this day with full particulars." In his declaration the plaintiff claimed the right to recover from the telegraph company the $ 1, 225 sued for by authority of § 4326, code 1892. That statute must be read in the light of the law governing such matters as has been done by this and all other courts--as, was done by this court in the case of the W. U. Tel. Co. v. Clifton, 68 Miss. 307, where the court reversed the judgment below upon the principles announced in the old case of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch., 341, but for which principle every telegraph company would long ago have gone into the hands of the sheriffs and marshals of the...