Western Union Tel. Co. v. Coffin

• Decision Date: 11 March 1895
• Citation: 30 S.W. 896
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. COFFIN.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

30 S.W. 896

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. COFFIN.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 11, 1895.

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

Action by W. E. Coffin against the Western Union Telegraph Company for negligence in failing to deliver a message. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the court of civil appeals, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

M. R. Geer, for plaintiff in error. Marsh & Butler, for defendant in error.

BROWN, J.

W. E. Coffin resided at Tyler on March 17, 1892, about 500 yards from the public square. He had resided in that town for about two years, and was well known to most of the business men of the town. Coffin married the sister of R. Bracken, and "thought as much of him as if he had been a brother." March 17, 1892, the following message was delivered to the agent of the telegraph company at Lancaster, Tex., at the hour of 7 a. m., the customary charges being paid at the time by the sender: "To W. E. Coffin, Tyler, Texas: A. Bracken will be buried to-morrow. Come at once. Answer. J. M. Knight." The message was promptly transmitted to Tyler by the telegraph company, and put into the hands of the messenger boy to be delivered to Coffin. The boy took it to an hotel, and inquired of the clerk if he knew W. E. Coffin, and was told that he (the clerk) knew him; that he was a traveling man, and was not in the city, but he stopped at that hotel when in the city, and would probably be in that night. The boy left the message with the clerk, who receipted for it. The man whom the clerk knew was C. H. Coffin, but he did not at the time remember the difference in the initials. The message was never delivered to W. E. Coffin, who was at home that day, and, if the message had been delivered, could and would have gone to the burial of his brother-in-law, Bracken. Coffin sued the telegraph company, and upon trial recovered judgment in the sum of $500, which judgment was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. The defendant filed a general demurrer and special exception presenting the question of relationship and a general denial, with a special plea not necessary to notice. Three assignments of error are presented for consideration, which present, in substance, one question; that is, do the facts proved entitle plaintiff to recover in this case?

The former decisions of this court have settled the following propositions of law applicable to the case: First. That the person for whose benefit a telegraph message is sent, and who is named in the message, or of whose interest therein notice is given to the company at the time, may sue upon it in case of injury from the negligence of the telegraph company Second. That the telegraph company is charged with notice of the relationship which actually exists between the parties named, whether disclosed by the terms of the message or not. Third. That the company receiving the message must take notice of the purposes for which the message was sent, as disclosed by the language of the message; and, in case of messages relating to serious sickness or death, it must be held to know that the person for whose benefit it is sent has a serious interest in the prompt delivery of it. Fourth. From the fact of blood relationship, if it exists, a jury may, without other proof, infer that mental anguish was occasioned by the failure to be present at the bedside of the sick, or at the funeral of the deceased, relative. Fifth. That mental anguish, whether accompanied by injury to the person or not, is a proper element of actual damages; and, when caused by the negligence of the telegraph company in failing to deliver a message, compensation therefor may be recovered by the injured party.

In the case of Telegraph Co. v. Erwin (Tex. Sup.) 19 S. W. 1002, the suit was by Erwin to recover damages for failure to deliver a message informing him of the death of his wife's father, in which suit he seems to have claimed damages for the mental anguish occasioned to himself as well as to his wife; but the question of relationship is not discussed, and the case is not regarded as authority upon the point. In Reese v. Telegraph Co., 123 Ind. 303, 24 N. E. 163, the plaintiff had sent a message to the husband of his sister informing him of the dangerous illness of his (Reese's) wife, which was not delivered. The wife died, and the brother-in-law addressed did not arrive before the burial. The...