Western Union Tel Co v. Hall
Decision Date | 30 January 1888 |
Citation | 8 S.Ct. 577,31 L.Ed. 479,124 U.S. 444 |
Parties | WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. HALL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action at law brought in the circuit court of Polk county, Iowa, by George F. Hall against the Western Union Telegraph Company, and by the defendant removed, on the ground of citizenship, to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Iowa. The action was for the recovery of damages for alleged negligence on the part of the defendant in delaying the delivery of a telegraphic message received by it from the plaintiff at Des Moines, in the state of Iowa, to be delivered to the party to whom it was addressed at Oil City, in the state of Pennsylvania. The cause was submitted to the court, a jury having been waived, in writing. A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $1,800. The cause is brought here by a writ of error upon a certificate of a division of opinion between the judges upon certain questions which arose during the course of the trial, which questions, together with the facts necessary for their determination, are certified to us as follows:
'The court finds the following as the the material facts in the case:
'The plaintiff, at eight o'clock A. M., November 9, 1882, furnished to the defendant, a telegraph company engaged in the business of receiving and sending telegraph dispatches, at its office in Des Moines, Ia., a message in the following form, and plainly written on one of the usual blank forms furnished by the company:
NORVIN GREEN, PRESIDENT.
The same being furnished and received by the defendant for immediate transmissal to Charles T. Hall, at Oil City, Penna., the usual and ordinary charge therefor being paid by plaintiff. Through the negligence and want of ordinary care on part of defendant's employe at Des Moines the message so received was forwarded to Oil City, Penna., in an imperfect condition in this: that the name of the party to whom it was addressed was wholly omitted. The message was received at Oil City, Penna., at 11 o'clock A. M., November 9th. The operator of defendant at Oil City sent the message to the building known as the 'Exchange,' which was used by a board of trade engaged in the business of buying and selling petroleum, the hours of business extending from 10 A. M. until 4 P. M. The officers of the exchange or board of trade refused to receive the dispatch in question, and thereupon the operator at Oil City telegraphed to Des Moines for the purpose of ascertaining to whom the dispatch should be delivered; and thus ascertaining for whom it was intended, delivered it to Charles T. Hall at six o'clock P. M., November 9, 1882. Had it not been for the error in sending the dispatch without including the name of Charles T. Hall, it would have been delivered to him at Oil City at 11:30 A. M. November 9, 1882. The meaning of the dispatch was to direct Charles T. Hall to buy ten thousand barrels of petroleum, if, in his judgment, it was best to do so. Had the dispatch upon its first receipt at Oil City, Penna., been promptly delivered to Charles T. Hall, he would, by twelve M. of November 9th, have purchased ten thousand barrels of petroleum at the then market price of $1.17 per barrel for the plaintiff. When the dispatch was delivered to Charles T. Hall the exchange had been closed for that day, so that said Hall could not then purchase the petroleum ordered by plaintiff. At the opening of the board the next day the price had advanced to $1.35 per barrel, at which rate said Charles T. Hall did not deem it advisable to make the purchase, and hence did not do so. It is not disclosed in the evidence whether the price of petroleum has advanced or receded since that date, November 10, 1882. The operators acting for the defendant had no other knowledge of the meaning or purpose of the dispatch than is to be gathered from the message itself.
'The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the failure to properly and promptly transmit the dispatch in question, in the circuit court of Polk county, Iowa, the original notice being served upon the defendant on the twenty-second day of December, 1882. Under he statutes of Iowa, actions in the courts of that state are commenced by serving upon the defendant an original notice, which is signed by the plaintiff or his attorney, and is addressed to the defendant. No summons or writ under the seal of the court is issued. The notice in this case was addressed to the defendant, and, after entitling the cause, proceeded as follows:
'No other presentation of the claim was made by plaintiff. Upon the foregoing facts it is the opinion of the presiding judge that the law is with the plaintiff, and that he is entitled to judgment in the sum of eighteen hundred dollars, and it is so ordered as the judgment of the court.
'The judges holding said circuit court, and before whom said cause was tried, hereby certify that on said trial of said cause they were divided in opinion, and were unable to agree upon the following questions of law arising on said trial and necessary to be determined in order to finally determine said cause, to-wit: [449]
First. Can the defendant, having in the usual line of its business accepted said message from plaintiff for transmissal to the party named therein at Oil City, Pa., and having received its usual charge for such service, be heard to say that it was not bound to exercise ordinary care in transmitting the same, and that it is only liable to the plaintiff in damages in case of gross negligence on its part? Second. Under the contract legally existing between the plaintiff and defendant, whereby the latter assumed the duty of forwarding said message, the same being an unrepeated message, was the defendant bound only to the exercise of slight care or to the exercise of ordinary care? Third. Under the contract legally existing between plaintiff and defendant, whereby the defendant assumed the duty of forwarding said message, the same being an unrepeated message, can the defendant, in any event, be held to respond in damages beyond the amount paid to the company for forwarding the said dispatch? Fourth. Admitting the liability of defendant to respond in damages beyond the sum paid for forwarding the message, what rule is to govern in ascertaining the same? Are the damages merely nominal, or is plaintiff entitled to the difference in value of the oil at the time it would have been purchased for plaintiff had the massage been properly forwarded and the value at the time it could have been purchased after the actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helms v. Western Union Tel. Co
...is the sum paid for sending. Primrose v. Telegraph Co., 154 U. S. 29, 14 Sup. Ct. 1098, 38 L. Ed 883; Hall v. Telegraph Co., 124 U. S. 444, 8 Sup. Ct 577, 31 L. Ed. 479. Our own court has adopted the same principles of law as applicable to this class of cases. In a well-considered opinion i......
-
Penn v. Western Union Tel. Co
...Court, to which we were cited, Primrose v. Telegraph Co., 154 U. S. 1. 14 Sup. Ct. 1098, 38 I,. Ed. 883, and Western Union v. Hall, 124 U. S. 444, 8 Sup. Ct. 577, 31 L. Ed. 479, the actions were consider-J ed and dealt with as for breach of the contract. In the present case, a tort, committ......
-
Thos. G. Hardie & Co v. Western Union Tel. Co
...when making the contract, as likely to result from its breach. This was directly adjudged in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hall, 124 U. S. 444. "In Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 345, decided in 1854, ever since considered a leading case on both sides of the Atlantic, and approved and followed by......
-
Connell v. The Western Union-Telegraph Company
... ... uncertain, indefinite, undefinable, unascertainable, ... dependent so largely on the peculiar temperament of the ... person suffering the delay, was in the contemplation of the ... defendant when it entered into the contract." ... Griffin v. Colver , 16 N.Y. 489; Telegraph Co. v ... Hall , 124 U.S. 444, 31 L.Ed. 479, 8 S.Ct. 577. But as ... before said, if we establish the rule as to one common ... carrier or private person, with what sort of consistency can ... we refuse to extend it to all? The courts of Texas have ... already spoken of a similar case as "intolerable ... ...