Pennington v. W. Union Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1885 |
| Citation | 24 N.W. 45,67 Iowa 631 |
| Parties | PENNINGTON v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Winneshiek district court.
Action for damages alleged to have been sustained by the negligence of the company in the transmission of a telegram. There was a trial to the court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Cooley & Akers, for appellant.
Cyrus Wellington, for appellee.
The telegram in question was delivered to the defendant at its office in Vicksburg, Michigan, by one A. B. Huntley, the plaintiff's agent, and is in the following words:
“VICKSBURG, MICHIGAN, October 11, 1882.
To George Pennington, Decorah, Iowa: Can buy apples two dollars. Shall I ship one car?
HUNTLEY.”
How it was transmitted to the company's agent at Decorah does not appear, nor is it material. It was read and written by the Decorah agent as follows:
“Dated VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI, 11.
To George Pennington, Decorah, Iowa: Can buy apples two dollars. Shall I ship one car?
HAULKEY.”
This was the telegram delivered to the plaintiff. Having no agent at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and no agent anywhere by the name of Haulkey, the plaintiff paid no attention to the telegram, and made no order for apples at that time through Huntley, and afterwards the price of apples was higher, and in purchasing he was obliged to pay more than the price mentioned in the telegram. The court found that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sum of $122.35, and rendered judgment against the defendant therefor. The defendants assign as error that the court erred in allowing the plaintiff more damages than the amount paid for the telegram, to-wit, 50 cents and interest.
In Hibbard v. W. U. Tel. Co. 33 Wis. 567, the court said: “Profits on a contract never made are quite too remote and uncertain to be taken into consideration.” In the case at bar the plaintiff merely lost an offer, and if we were to apply the rule above mentioned, it would be clear that the plaintiff could not recover more than the cost of the telegram. But we need not go so far as to hold the above rule applicable. In no event could the plaintiff recover more than the value of the offer, and that could not be greater than the value of the contract would have been, in case the offer had been received and accepted. Now, the value of a contract for the purchase of property, where nothing is paid, is the difference between the amount agreed to be paid and such greater...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. McCracken
-
State v. McCracken
... ... that he purchased the pony of a man near Union for fifteen ... dollars. The defendant contends that, if this explanation was ... true, then his ... ...
-
Pennington v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... judgment against the defendant therefor. The defendants ... assign as error that the court erred in allowing the ... plaintiff more damages than the amount paid for the telegram, ... to-wit, fifty cents and interest ... In ... Hibbard v. W. U. Tel. Co., 33 Wis. 558, the court ... said: "Profits on a contract never made are quite too ... remote and uncertain to be taken into consideration." In ... the case at bar, the plaintiff merely lost an offer, and, if ... we were to apply the rule above mentioned, it would be clear ... that the ... ...