W. Union Tel. Co. v. Brown
Decision Date | 12 December 1884 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1614. |
Citation | 62 Tex. 536 |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Parties | WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. JOSEPH H. BROWN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Hood.
On December 4, 1880, Joseph H. Brown, to meet and protect his acceptance for $5,679.93 in favor of Dymond & Gardes, of the city of New Orleans, which matured on the 6th of the same month, procured from the banking house of Tidball, VanZandt & Co., of Fort Worth, “telegraphic exchange” on New Orleans. This he did by receiving from Tidball, VanZandt & Co. the following message:
“FORT WORTH, Texas, 12--4, 1880.
To Louisiana National Bank, New Orleans, La.:
Protect Joseph H. Brown's note to Dymond & Gardes, due 6th instant.
+---------------------------------+ ¦(Signed)¦TIDBALL, VANZANDT & CO.”¦ +---------------------------------+
On the same day appellee Brown caused the message to be delivered to the receiving clerk of appellant, the Western Union Telegraph Company, at its office in Fort Worth; and, to procure its safe and correct transmission, he caused to be paid to said clerk not only the price demanded to send the message to New Orleans, but also that demanded to have it repeated, as required by the rules and regulations of the company. The clerk was aware of the importance of the message and promised to have the same promptly forwarded.It was shown that the usual time required to send a message from Fort Worth to New Orleans was about two hours. It never, in fact, reached New Orleans; and, in consequence, the demand of Dymond & Gardes against Brown was duly protested for non-payment; by reason of which Brown claims to have been damaged, and for which this suit is brought.
Appellant Brown, in his original petition, after stating and setting forth his case, concludes with the following final and summary allegation: “And that thereby plaintiff has greatly suffered in mind and feeling and has lost a large sum of money, all by reason of said gross negligence of defendant, to his great damage, to wit: the sum of $10,000.” But in his prayer he uses the following language: “Wherefore, the premises considered, plaintiff prays … that he have judgment for the sum of $100, actual damages sustained by him as aforesaid, being the cost of protest and the amount paid defendant for transmitting said message, and for the further sum of $10,000 exemplary damages, on account of the said gross negligence and conscious indifference of defendant to their responsibilities and to plaintiff's rights in the premises as aforesaid, and for general relief.”
Upon trial in the court below, upon the original pleadings, verdict was returned for plaintiff for $4.50 actual damages, and $5,000 exemplary damages. From the judgment rendered on this verdict the defendant, the Western Union Telegraph Company, appealed to this court; and the said judgment was reversed and remanded. See opinion in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 58 Tex., 172.
After the filing of said opinion and the mandate, to wit, on the 30th day of April, 1883, the plaintiff Brown filed his first amended original petition in the case, which was a reproduction of his original petition, save and except plaintiff, in his said amendment, changed the words “ great damage” to “ actual damage,” and then added the following:
etc.
Appellant on the 8th day of May, 1883, filed its second amended original answer, wherein, after general demurrer, it sets up to first amended original petition, among others, the following exception:
That said petition sets up a cause of action which appears, on its face, to be barred by the statute of limitation. The exception was overruled.
A statement of the facts on which the charge of negligence was based would serve no purpose in view of the points discussed in the opinion.
Stemmons & Field, for appellant, on their proposition that there was error in not sustaining exceptions to plaintiff's first amended original petition, cited: R. S., arts. 3202, 3203, 3204; Jones v. Lewis, 11 Tex., 359;Lewis v. Houston, 11 Tex., 645;Williams v. Randon, 10 Tex., 74;Ayres v. Cayce, 10 Tex., 107;Henderson v. Kissam, 8 Tex., 46;Erskine v. Wilson, 27 Tex., 118;Governor v. Burnett, 27 Tex., 32;Erskine v. Wilson, 20 Tex., 81;Hill v. Clay, 26 Tex., 650;Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 58 Tex., 170;Hays v. H. & G. N. R. R. Co., 46 Tex., 276;Edelman v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 3 Mo. App., 503;Illinois R. R. Co. v. Hanmer, 72 Ill., 353;Peoria Bridge Association v. Loomis, 20 Ill., 251;Wardrobe...
To continue reading
Request your trial