Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith

• Decision Date: 18 February 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 169
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. <I>v.</I> SMITH.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 169

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 18, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Colorado county.

Action by Frank M. Smith against the Western Union Telegraph Company for failure to deliver a message. Defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition, on the ground that the damages were too remote and conjectural, and were not in the contemplation of the parties in case of a breach of the contract. The court overruled the demurrer, there was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Stemmons & Field, for appellant. McLean & Munson, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

Appellee delivered to appellant the following message, to be transported over its wires: "Merkel, Tex. 10, 21, 1886. To J. C. Ratcliff, Columbus, Texas, Care of Simpson & Crebbs: Meet me in Columbus, Saturday night. [Signed] FRANK M. SMITH." Plaintiff in his amended petition charges that he is a merchant, a banker, and the treasurer of Jones county, Tex.; that on the 21st day of October, 1886, he was at Merkel, and having important business with said Ratcliff, who resided in Coleman county, and being then on his way to said county to have a personal interview with him, and being pressed for time because he had other important engagements to meet, and the nature of his business at home demanding his speedy return, he sent the above dispatch, and paid 50 cents for transmitting it; that when he delivered the message "he informed defendant's agent that the message was important, and of the circumstances making necessary its speedy transmission and delivery;" that plaintiff proceeded on his journey, and on his arrival at Columbus he failed to find said Ratcliff, and, on inquiry, he found that the message had not been delivered to Simpson & Crebbs, although they had an office in said city which was well known to defendant's agent there; that at the date of said message Simpson & Crebbs were transacting said Ratcliff's business, and, if the message had been delivered to them, it would have been forwarded to Ratcliff in ample time for him to have met plaintiff, and he would have done so, saving plaintiff from further delay; that on account of the non-delivery of the message, he was compelled to incur great expense in procuring a conveyance to the home of Ratcliff, which was about 25 miles distant from Columbus; that on reaching the home of Ratcliff he found him absent, and plaintiff had to go a distance of 25 miles further to find him; that by reason of the...