Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Littleton

• Decision Date: 16 June 1910
• Citation: 169 Ala. 99,53 So. 97
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. LITTLETON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

53 So. 97

169 Ala. 99

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. LITTLETON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 16, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; C. P. Almon, Judge.

Action by L. D. Littleton against the Western Union Telegraph Company for failure to properly transmit messages. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The second count is as follows: "Plaintiff claims of defendant, a corporation, the sum of $1,000 damages, for that on, to wit, the 22d day of August, 1908, the plaintiff through his agent, G. Webb, at Ensley, Ala., delivered to defendant for transmission and delivery at the said Ensley Ala., to plaintiff, at Guin, Ala., a message in words and figures substantially as follows: 'Ensley, Ala 8/22/1908. To L. D. Littleton, Guin, Ala.: If satisfactory will close deal at prime cost for entire stock fifty-five. G Webb.' And defendant contracted and undertook for a certain sum of money, which plaintiff's agent then and there paid to defendant, to deliver said message to plaintiff at Guin, Ala.; and plaintiff alleges that on said date defendant was engaged in the business of transmitting telegraph messages for hire between said places, and plaintiff further alleges that defendant broke the said contract in this: That it negligently and carelessly failed to transmit and deliver said message to plaintiff at Guin Ala., but that the message delivered to plaintiff at said Guin, Ala., was in words and figures as follows, to wit: 'Ensley, Ala., 8/22/190.' L. D. Littleton, Guin, Ala. If satisfactory will close deal at prime cost for entire stock sixty-five. G. Webb.' And plaintiff alleges that, at the time said contract was made for the transmission and delivery of said first-named message, he was the owner and in possession of a large stock of merchandise located in said Ensley, Ala., of the value of, to wit, several thousand dollars. And plaintiff further alleges that, at the time said message was accepted by defendant for transmission and delivery to plaintiff by and through his agent, said G. Webb, plaintiff had received an offer for the sale of such stock of merchandise at the sum of 55 cents on the dollar of the prime cost thereof; and plaintiff further alleges that in answer to said telegram as so delivered to him in Guin, Ala., and relying upon such telegram as so delivered to him, he immediately wired his agent at Ensley, Ala., to close the deal to the entire stock at the price mentioned; and plaintiff alleges that his agent, in obedience to said instruction so received by him, closed the deal, and sold the said entire stock of merchandise at and for the sum of 55 cents on the dollar of the prime cost thereof; and plaintiff alleges that said stock of merchandise was worth a great deal more than 55 cents on the prime cost thereof, for which sum same was sold, and if the said message had been correctly transmitted and delivered to him by the defendant, as it was its duty to do, he would not have sold said stock for 55 cents; that said sale was so made at the price in ignorance of the fact that said message had not been correctly transmitted and delivered, and that plaintiff thought at the time of making said sale that he had received an offer of 65 cents on the dollar of the prime cost of said stock, and gave his agent instruction to sell in reliance on the said telegram as so delivered to him at Guin, Ala., and plaintiff alleges that on account of said defendant's negligence and carelessness in the transmission and delivery of the same as it was its duty to do, and because of its failure to correctly transmit and deliver the same as was its duty...