Western Union Tel. Co. v. Munford

• Decision Date: 03 January 1889
• Citation: 10 S.W. 318
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. <I>v.</I> MUNFORD.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

10 S.W. 318

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.v.

MUNFORD.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 3, 1889.

Error to circuit court, Warren county; M. D. SMALLMAN, Judge.

Action by E. W. Munford against the Western Union Telegraph Company for delay in the delivery of a telegram sent by plaintiff. Plaintiff having died, Mary E. Munford, executrix, etc., was substituted. Defendant brings error.

J. W. Bonner, for plaintiff in error. Frank Spurlock, for defendant in error.

LURTON, J.

This is an action brought by E. W. Munford, the testator of defendant in error, in his life-time, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the delay in the transmission of a telegram. E. W. Munford, on the 11th of April, 1887, delivered to the agent of the plaintiff in error, at its office in McMinnville, Tenn., a telegram for transmission to Tampa, Fla., of which the following is a copy:

                                                     "McMINNVILLE, TENN., Apl. 11, 1887
                

"Col. Sam Tate, Tampa, Florida: Proposition accepted. Your draft for one thousand will be honored.

                        [Signed]                                          "E. W. MUNFORD."
                

The lines owned and operated by the Western Union Telegraph Company did not extend to Tampa, Fla., but terminated at Jacksonville, in that state. From Jacksonville to Tampa there was a telegraph line, owned and operated by the South Florida Telegraph Company, and the message in question could only be transmitted to its destination by being sent over the line of the Western Union Telegraph Company to Jacksonville, and then transferred to the South Florida Company, by whom it would be sent to Tampa. Of this fact Mr. Munford was advised by the agent, who received his message for transmission. The telegram was promptly forwarded, reaching Tampa early in the afternoon of the same day. In transmission the address of the message was changed from "Col. Sam Tate" to "Col. Wm. Tate." This, it is agreed, occurred on the line of the plaintiff in error before it was transferred to the connecting company. The message was not delivered by the South Florida Company to Col. Tate until the 13th, it having been received at Tampa on the 11th. Plaintiff below alleged that by this delay he sustained damage amounting to $500.

In the view we take of the case, it is only necessary to consider one of the defenses presented by the pleas of the plaintiff in error; and that, in substance, is that the delay in the delivery of the message was not occasioned by the error in transmitting the address, but resulted alone from the negligence of the agent of the South Florida Company The facts concerning the delay, as we find them to be from the transcript, are these: The agent of the South Florida Company at Tampa personally knew Col. Sam Tate. He states that he knew no such person as Col. William Tate, and that when he received the message he believed it to be intended for Col. Sam Tate; that he instructed the messenger, whose duty it was to make personal delivery, to inquire and learn if there was a Col. William Tate in Tampa, and, if he could hear of no such person, to take the message to Col. Sam Tate. The messenger thus instructed says he made inquiry, and, hearing of no William Tate, undertook to deliver the message to Col. Sam Tate; that he took it to the office of S. A. Jones, where both he and the agent say they had been requested by Mr. Jones to leave messages for Col. Tate. The messenger states, upon inquiry for Col. Tate, a clerk in the office informed him that Col. Tate was then at Clear Water Harbor. This information being communicated to the agent of the telegraph company, he, on the same day, instead of making further inquiry for Col. Tate, mailed the message addressed to Col. Sam Tate at Clear Water Harbor, Fla.

The fact, as shown by the proof, is that Col. Tate was in Tampa on the 11th, and had been there for some days, and that he had never authorized delivery of messages for him at the office of Mr....