Western Union Tel. Co. v. Edmondson

• Citation: 42 S.W. 549
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. EDMONDSON.
• Decision Date: 11 November 1897
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

42 S.W. 549

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. EDMONDSON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 11, 1897.

Error to court of civil appeals of Fourth supreme judicial district.

Suit by J. A. Edmondson against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals (40 S. W. 622) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

Norman G. Kittrell, for plaintiff in error. S. H. Goodlett and Beauregard Bryan, for defendant in error.

BROWN, J.

J. A. Edmondson instituted suit in the district court of Washington county to recover from the Western Union Telegraph Company damages alleged to have accrued to his wife by the failure of the telegraph company to deliver to her the following message: "Gatesville, Texas, July 27, 1894. Mrs. J. A. Edmondson, Brenham, Texas: Your father was struck with paralysis this morning. Come to Clifton. [Signed] J. W. Sherrell." Mrs. Edmondson lived in the country, about 12 miles from Brenham, but in consideration of the extra sum of $2.50 the telegraph company agreed to send the message to her. The message was received at Brenham on the night of 27th of July, but was not sent to Mrs. Edmondson until the next morning, when, at about 8 o'clock a. m., a messenger was started with the dispatch to her home, and arrived there about 11:30 o'clock a. m. of the 28th of July, and then delivered the message to her. The nearest railway station was Gay Hill, three miles distant from her home. Only one passenger train passed the station during each day going in the direction of Clifton, and that train passed at 11:37 o'clock a. m. The message might have been delivered by 10 o'clock a. m. of July 28th, by the use of ordinary diligence, in which event Mrs. Edmondson could have taken the train that day; but she did not have time after receiving the message to reach the station before the passenger train had gone, and was compelled to remain over until 11:37 a. m. July 29th, to start on her trip to Clifton. The father of Mrs. Edmondson died on the afternoon of July 27th, before the telegram reached Brenham, and was buried on the afternoon of July 28th, before she could have arrived at his home if the telegram had been promptly delivered. Mrs. Edmondson left Gay Hill at 11:37 a. m. July 29th, and arrived at Clifton at 5 p. m. of that day, and by private conveyance reached her father's home at 9 or 10 o'clock that night. She first heard of her father's death when she arrived at Clifton. If the message had been promptly delivered, she would have heard of his death 24 hours earlier. Mrs. Edmondson suffered much mental anguish on account of the suspense in not being able to hear what her father's condition was. The suit is brought for the damages arising from the mental suffering occasioned by the suspense in not knowing the condition of her father during the time that she was delayed. Upon a trial in the district court, judgment was rendered for the defendant in error, J. A. Edmondson, for the sum of $1,000, which was affirmed by the court of civil appeals.

The plaintiff in this suit sought to recover alone upon the ground that, by the failure of the telegraph company to deliver the message in proper time, Mrs. Edmondson was delayed 24 hours in starting on her trip to her father, and that during that time she was in a state of suspense as to what his condition was, which caused her mental suffering. It is admitted that, if the message had been promptly delivered, the same state of anxiety would have existed up to the time she would have arrived at Clifton, on her way to her father's home; but it is likewise claimed that the continuance of that mental anguish and suspense beyond that time was caused by the failure of the telegraph company to perform its contract, and deliver the message in a reasonable time. In the case of Rowell v. Telegraph Co., 75 Tex. 26, 12 S. W. 534, this court held that continued anxiety caused by failure to deliver a message did not constitute a cause of action against the telegraph company. It is claimed, however, that there is a distinction between that case and the one before the court, and that this case should not be governed by the rule laid down in Rowell v. Telegraph Co. In that case the plaintiff's wife had received a message announcing the sickness of her mother, and advising her to come. In reply the husband sent a message inquiring as to the condition of the mother, and stating that, if she was no better, his wife would come at once. An answer was placed...