Morris v. W. Union Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1900
• Citation: Morris v. W. Union Tel. Co., 47 A. 926, 94 Me. 423 (Me. 1900)
• Parties: MORRIS v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

47 A. 926

94 Me. 423

MORRIS

v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 11, 1900.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Washington county.

Action by Charles E. Morris against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Case reported, and judgment for defendant.

This was an action of assumpsit for alleged failure of the Western Union Telegraph Company to deliver seasonably a message sent from Eastport to Boston, April 18, 1899, relative to a contract for stocks. The plaintiff claimed special damages to the amount of $145, claiming that he lost this sum because, under the special and peculiar terms and usages of his contract his three-point margin was exhausted, and his stock was sold at a loss instead of a profit.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, SAVAGE, FOGLER, and POWERS, JJ.

J. H. McFaul, for plaintiff.

O. D. Baker, for defendant.

POWERS, J. On April 15, 1899, the plaintiff directed one Hayden, a correspondent at Machias, Me., of F. A. Rogers & Co., of Boston, to buy for him, of said Rogers & Co., 20 shares of Metropolitan Street-Railway stock, at $250 1/2 and a quarter added for commission, making $250 3/4, and at the same time deposited with him $60, and received from him the following memorandum:

"Duplicate. Trade No. 2. Margin, three protect. We solicit and receive no business except with the understanding that the actual delivery of property bought or sold upon orders is in all cases contemplated and understood.

"To Mr. Chas. E. Morris: In obedience to your orders, as your agent, in my own name, I have this day contracted with F. A. Rogers & Co., of Boston, to buy twenty shares of Metro., at 250 3/4.

Date. Called. Limit. Deposit.

Apr. 15. 250 3/4 47 3/4 60.00"

This transaction is termed by plaintiff's witnesses a "deal." According to the custom of F. A. Rogers & Co., all deals could be closed and stock treated as sold, at any time before 10 o'clock the next morning, at the closing price of the day before, on the New York Stock Exchange, and the difference between the buying and selling price adjusted on that basis. On April 17th the closing price of the stock above named was $255, and before 9 o'clock the next morning plaintiff delivered to the agent of the defendant, at its office in Machias, a telegram addressed to said Rogers & Co., Boston, directing then to "close Metro., fifty-five." At the opening of the stock exchange on the 18th this stock fell to 247 3/4, and, according to the method of doing business and the understanding between the parties, the plaintiff's "deal was exhausted," his rights under the contract terminated, and his margin of $60 lost. Plaintiff brings this action for the nondelivery of the telegram, and claims to recover as damages the $60 margin, and $85, the difference between the purchasing price, $250%, and $255, the price at which he ordered his deal closed.

If the case stopped here, it might not be difficult to determine the true nature of the dealings between the plaintiff and F. A. Rogers & Co. It is admitted, however, that "in such a transaction or deal the method of business in the plaintiff's deal is as follows: Such trades are made on quotations only, no actual stock being in fact sold; but settlements of differences are fully made when the deals are closed as to profits or losses." This admission is fatal to the plaintiff's case. It strips the transaction of the semblance of legitimate business with which the memorandum endeavored to clothe it, and leaves it a...