Western Union Tel. Co. v. Redinger

• Decision Date: 12 February 1902
• Citation: 66 S.W. 485
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. REDINGER.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

66 S.W. 485

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. REDINGER.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 12, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Fannin county; E. S. Chambers, Judge.

On motion to modify statement. Granted.

For former reports, see 63 S. W. 156; 65 S. W. 78.

Wilkins, Vinson & Batsell and Geo. H. Fearons, for appellant. Wheeler & Cunningham and Agnew & Duncan, for appellee.

KEY, J.

Appellee has submitted a motion asking this court to modify and correct a statement embodied in the supplemental findings of fact heretofore filed to the effect that the proprietor of the hotel where the plaintiff boarded in Bonham was informed of the fact that the messenger boy had a message for him. The motion will be granted. On that issue there was a conflict in the testimony, and, the jury having decided in favor of the plaintiff, we find, in support of the verdict, that the hotel proprietor was not informed of the fact that the messenger had a telegram for Redinger; but the undisputed testimony shows that the boy who acted as messenger for the telegraph company went to the hotel, and inquired of the proprietor for Redinger, and was told that he was out of town. And by the same character of testimony it was shown that the hotel proprietor knew at the time that the boy referred to was a messenger of the telegraph company, whose duty it was to deliver telegrams, but he did not ask the messenger boy if he had a telegram for Redinger, nor offer to receive the same. In examining the record on the motion under consideration, the writer has reached the conclusion that this case is distinguishable from the Linn Case, 87 Tex. 7, 26 S. W. 490, 47 Am. St. Rep. 58, and that there was testimony which authorized the jury to find that the proprietor of the hotel was the plaintiff's agent, and had authority to receive the message, and the only hiatus in plaintiff's case is the entire absence of any testimony tending to show that the messenger boy or the telegraph company had any knowledge of the fact, or reason to suppose that the hotel proprietor was authorized to receive the telegram. The mere fact that the plaintiff boarded at the hotel was not notice of the fact that the proprietor of the hotel was the plaintiff's agent for the purpose of receiving telegrams, or for any other purpose; nor was it the duty of the telegraph company, under the circumstances stated, to prosecute an inquiry to ascertain whether the plaintiff had an agent authorized to receive the telegram. If the...