Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 27 May 1903
• Citation: 75 S.W. 843
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

75 S.W. 843

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. CRAWFORD.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Mills County; Jno. W. Goodwin, Judge.

Action by E. G. Crawford against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Arch Grinnan, for appellant. R. L. H. Williams and Cox & Anderson, for appellee.

FISHER, C. J.

The appellee, Crawford, sued the telegraph company for failure to promptly deliver the following telegram: "Crandall, Texas, June 15th, 1901. To Bob Atkinson: Mother is dead. Will bury tomorrow. Notify Ed. [Signed] J. D. Crawford." Verdict and judgment were in appellee's favor.

We find the following facts: J. D. Crawford, the sender of the message, is a brother of E. G. Crawford, and it was for the purpose of notifying E. G. Crawford of the death of his mother. The person Ed., mentioned in the message, was the plaintiff. The party to whom it was sent, Bob Atkinson, was the friend of the plaintiff, and he and the plaintiff, at the time the message was received at Goldthwaite, Tex., both resided at that town within the free delivery limits. The message was received at Goldthwaite about 3:50 o'clock p. m. on June 15th, but was not delivered until the following day. If it had been delivered to Bob Atkinson, he would have promptly notified the plaintiff, who could have boarded a train on the night of the 15th, and have reached the town of Crandall before the burial of his mother. The delay in the delivery of the message deprived him of his privilege of being present at the funeral of his mother, and we find that the appellant was guilty of negligence in not promptly delivering the message to Bob Atkinson on the evening of June 15th. From the date of the message up till late in the evening of that day Bob Atkinson was in the town of Goldthwaite, and the message could have been delivered to him, if appellant's messenger had exercised ordinary diligence and care to have found Bob Atkinson.

The charge of the court complained of in the eighth assignment of error, was proper under the facts. As a matter of fact, it was an issue brought into the case, and insisted upon by appellant as one of its defenses. If the defendant desired any additional instruction on the subject of its not being required to deliver outside of the free delivery limits, it should have been requested.

The tenth and twentieth assignments of error are submitted together, and the questions raised by them are...