Western Union Tel. Co. v. Adams

• Decision Date: 20 December 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 857
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. <I>v.</I> ADAMS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 857

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.v.

ADAMS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 20, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Henderson county; F. A. WILLIAMS, Judge.

Stemmons & Field, for appellant. Richardson & Watkins, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

Appellee brought this suit to recover damages for defendant's delay in delivering the following message: "Waco, Oct. 12th, 1887. To F. E. Adams, Athens: Clara, come quick. Rufe is dying. [Signed] O. M. SIMMONS." His allegations are that said message was delivered to appellant's agent at Waco about 10 o'clock of said day, and that the message was not delivered to appellee until shortly before noon on the 13th day of October, 1887. That appellee was a merchant, in Athens, residing there, doing business in the post-office building, within 100 yards of defendant's office, and on the public square; and that his residence was within 100 yards of defendant's office. That appellee was well known to the residents of said town. That there were two trains daily from Athens to Waco, — one at 10:50 in the evening, the other at 7:05 in the morning; and that on the morning of the 13th of October there was an accommodation train which left Athens for Waco at 10 o'clock. That appellee's wife took the first train going to Waco after receiving said message, arriving at Waco on the morning of October 14th. That when she reached Waco her brother was dead, and his body had been sent to a distant part of the state for burial. That they were compelled to take another train to the place of burial. Her brother died about 6 o'clock in the evening of the 13th. That, had the message been promptly delivered, appellee's wife could have reached her brother in time to have been with him 14 hours before his death, and, if the message had been delivered before either of the trains on the morning of the 13th, she could have been with him at least 6 hours before his death. That by reason of appellant's failure to promptly deliver said telegram, and of her being deprived of being with her brother in his last sickness, she suffered great anguish, pain of mind, and was prostrated and broken down in body and mind, and was damaged in the sum of $5,000. That plaintiff repaid Simmons the amount he paid for transmitting the telegram. To this appellant answered by general demurrer and general denial. The general demurrer was overruled. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for the sum of $2,000.40. The evidence supported the pleading. Appellant's proposition, under its first three assignments, is "that the message did not disclose that the relation of brother and sister existed between Rufe and Clara, nor do the allegations in the petition disclose that appellant had notice of the relationship existing between them at the time it contracted to transmit said message; and, by reason of the want of notice of this fact, appellant cannot be held liable for the damages sued for herein."

The rule insisted upon by appellant is too restricted to be safely applied to communications sent by the electric telegraph. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on account of mental pain suffered by his wife because of her inability to be with her brother when he was dying. The allegations and the evidence show that her failure to be with him was on account of her failure to receive information of his condition in time to reach him by the means of conveyance that were at her command. It is difficult to conceive of any form of expression that would have more accurately conveyed to her the information intended than would that used in the telegram, had it been delivered to her. If any diligence had been used for its delivery when it reached its destination she would not only have known the condition of her brother, that it was intended to communicate, but would have known it in ample time to have reached him while living and conscious. The mental pain suffered by her on account of being deprived of this privilege is recognized by the law as a ground for the assessment of damages against defendant, if it was induced by its negligence. The contention of defendant, in effect, is that it can only be held liable for such damages as may be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties if the telegram was delayed in its delivery, and that no damage can be held to have been in contemplation of the defendant not suggested by the language of the dispatch, and that all that could be gleaned from this dispatch by its agents was that some person at Waco wanted some person at Athens, named "Clara," to come quickly to Waco, because some person named "Rufe" was dying. It seems to be well settled that telegraph companies are not charged with knowledge of the importance of delivering cipher dispatches. As, in the nature of things, they cannot know the contents of such telegrams, — that mode of expression being adopted to keep them from knowing, — the rule is a just one that preserves them from the responsibility that such knowledge would impose on them. There...