Russell v. W. Union Tel. Co.
Decision Date | 12 May 1884 |
Parties | Russell v. Western Union Telegraph Co. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Grand Forks county.E. St. Julien Cox, for appellant. Woodruff & Bangs, for respondent.
This action was brought against the defendant as a common carrier of messages to recover damages suffered by the plaintiff by the neglect of the defendant to transmit and deliver a certain message. That portion of the complaint which is material to be incorporated here is as follows:
(3) That plaintiff heretofore had a sister living at Hunter, in Dakota, aforesaid, at which point, on the fourteenth day of June, 1882, the said defendant had and maintained an office for the reception and transmission of messages as aforesaid.
(4) That on the day and year aforesaid the defendant had and maintained an office for the reception and delivery of messages as aforesaid at Grand Forks, aforesaid.
(5) That on the day and year aforesaid the said defendant had and maintained a line of telegraphic communication between the places, stations, and points aforesaid.
(6) That on the said fourteenth day of June last, aforesaid, at Hunter, aforesaid, for a valuable consideration paid to said defendant by one Alexander Russell, to-wit, the sum of _______ dollars, the defendant agreed to transmit and carry over its lines of telegraph from Hunter, aforesaid, to Grand Forks, aforesaid, forthwith, the following message sent by Alexander Russell, directed to and intrusted to be sent, forwarded, and delivered to plaintiff at Grand Forks, aforesaid, and defendant took and received the said message and promised to transmit and send the same, and deliver the same forth with to this plaintiff at Grand Forks, aforesaid, for the consideration paid as aforesaid.
(7) Said message was in the following words, to-wit: .”
(8) That the said company defendant did not fulfill said agreement, by them made and entered into as aforesaid, to transmit and dispatch said message, or deliver it as agreed upon to this plaintiff; but, on the contrary, although the period between the said day of delivering said message or dispatch to said defendant at Hunter, aforesaid, and the day on which it should have been delivered to plaintiff, to-wit, the same day, to-wit, June 14, 1882, was and would have been a reasonable time for carrying, transmitting, sending, and delivering said message, aforesaid; yet said telegraph company so negligently, willfully, and carelessly misbehaved and conducted said business, and in regard to the same as a telegraph company, that they failed, and willfully, carelessly, and negligently withheld the transmission and dispatching said message to plaintiff, and carelessly, willfully, and negligently omitted to deliver said message so sent, or intended so to be, to this plaintiff; that it was not delivered to or received by this plaintiff until the nineteenth day of June, 1882.
(9) That by means thereof this plaintiff has been greatly shocked, injured, and outraged in his feelings and sensibilities, and suffered great mental distress and anguish, to his damage in the sum of $50,000.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ferguson
...The following telegraph cases are directly in point: Peay v. Telegraph Co., 64 Ark. 538, 43 S. W. 965, 39 L. R. A. 463;Russell v. Telegraph Co., 3 Dak. 315, 19 N. W. 408; Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 South. 148, 21 L. R. A. 810;Chapman v. Telegraph Co., 88 Ga. 763, 15 S. E. 90......
-
Wilson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation
...... (Willson) 217; Nelson v. Crawford, 122 Mich. 466, 80 Am. St. Rep. 577, 81 N.W. 335; Russell v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 3 Dakota 315, 19 N.W. 408. . . If. anxiety and ......
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Choteau
...... v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 64 Ark. 538, 43 S.W. 965, 39 L. R. A. 463; Dakota, Russell v. Western Union. Telegraph Co., 3 Dak. 315, 19 N.W. 408; Florida,. International Ocean Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 South, 148, ......
-
Peay v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...695 [dissenting opinion]; 57 F. 471; 44 F. 554; 47 F. 544; 54 F. 634; 55 F. 603; 59 F. 433; 52 F. 264; 133 U.S. 22; 39 Kas. 93; 17 P. 807; 3 Dak. 315; 19 N.W. 408; 68 Miss. 9 So. 823; 14 So. 148; 15 S.E. 901; 88 Ga. 763; 37 P. 1087; 22 S.W. 345; 57 N.W. 973; 59 N.W. 1078; 42 N.Y.S. 1109; 15......