Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Schriver

• Decision Date: 16 March 1904
• Docket Number: 1,906.
• Citation: 129 F. 344
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. SCHRIVER et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

129 F. 344

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. SCHRIVER et al.

No. 1,906.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 16, 1904

Asa F Call (Geo. H. Fearons and Craig L. Wright, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

D. M Kelleher (John A. Senneff, M. F. Healy, T. D. Healy, L. M Shaw, and Jacob Sims, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN, THAYER, and VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judges.

VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs in the Circuit Court, defendants in error in this court recovered a judgment against the telegraph company for $8,872, with interest, as damages occasioned to them by the company's transmission and delivery of this telegram:

'Denison, Iowa, March 14, 1902. To Commercial Bank, Britt, Iowa: We will honor Barnes draft for eight thousand nine hundred seventy-two dollars. (Signed) Bank of Denison.'

Plaintiffs were dealers in live stock, and negotiated a sale of cattle to one Barnes, who made payment therefor by a check drawn by him on the Bank of Denison, and made payable to plaintiffs. The contention of plaintiffs was that the telegram was transmitted and delivered without the authority or knowledge of the Bank of Denison; that 'defendant company knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care and caution would have known,' this; that the Commercial Bank at Britt was the agent of plaintiffs for the purpose of receiving assurance that Barnes' check would be paid upon presentation; that, upon the delivery of the telegram by defendant to the Commercial Bank, it was exhibited by the latter to the plaintiffs, and relying upon the telegram as genuine, plaintiffs then accepted Barnes' check, and delivered the cattle to him; that the check was not paid, Barnes proved to be insolvent; and the transaction resulted in a loss to plaintiffs of the entire value of the cattle. It was not claimed that defendant had any knowledge of the transaction between Barnes and plaintiffs, or of the relation of the Commercial Bank of Britt to plaintiffs, or that defendant had any knowledge of the purpose of the telegram, otherwise than as its purpose was disclosed upon its face. The transmission and delivery of the telegram in the name of the Bank of Denison was procured by Barnes, and the circumstances under which this was done were the subject of conflicting evidence. The company's charge for the message was paid at the sending office, and not by the bank at Britt or by plaintiffs.

Different rulings during the trial show that the court proceeded upon the view that it was permissible for the jury to say and find that the telegraph company was fairly charged by the language of the telegram with notice that some one other than the addressee, the Commercial Bank, was intending to act upon the information therein given, and would be affected by it, and that if the jury placed this construction upon the telegram, the case would be taken out of the well-recognized rule, stated and applied by this court in McCornick v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 25 C.C.A. 35, 39, 79 F. 499, 38 L.R.A. 684, viz.: 'But a telegraph company cannot be liable to a stranger to the company and to the telegram-- one to whom it has never delivered the message,...