Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Bradford

Decision Date21 November 1908
PartiesWESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. BRADFORD.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL>
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Nolan County; James L. Shepherd, Judge.

Action by J. A. J. Bradford against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 281, 91 S. W. 818.

This suit was brought by the appellee, J. A. J. Bradford, for damages for an alleged breach of contract made by appellant, the Western Union Telegraph Company, with him, by which the appellant agreed to furnish appellee from time to time at Sweetwater, Tex., correct reports of the Chicago grain market. Appellee alleged: That prior to January and February, 1903, at which time the contract was in effect, the plaintiff had made a contract with the defendant, and the defendant had so contracted with the plaintiff, that the defendant would for a fee of $5 a week furnish to plaintiff daily the Chicago market reports; over its lines, of wheat, corn, and oats; such reports to be the correct market reports of such grain. That said contract was to continue until notice to discontinue should be given by one of the parties thereto. That plaintiff was on the 3d day of February, 1903, as he had prior thereto, complying on his part with said contract, and was paying said fees of $5 per week for said services on defendant's part; said contract being then in full force and effect. That the plaintiff has no copy of said contract and cannot give a better description of same. That on or about January 28, 1903, plaintiff, through his agent, the Donovan Commission Company of St. Louis, Mo., contracted for the sale upon the Chicago market for May delivery thereafter 10,000 bushels of oats and 40,000 bushels of corn, and on the 2d day of February, 1903, he made a like contract sale of 10,000 bushels of wheat, in which contracts the plaintiff had the option of delivering said grain at any time prior to May 31, 1903. That plaintiff paid to his said agents on said contracts the sum of $600, besides their commission of $150. That the price for which plaintiff had contracted to sell said commodities and which he was to receive for same was 35¼ cents per bushel for oats, 77 3/8 cents per bushel for wheat, and 43 7/8 cents per bushel for corn. That prior to May 31, 1903, the prices on said commodities had greatly declined, which decline occurred about in the month of March, 1903, and during which such decline the plaintiff could have purchased on the Chicago market said grains at the following prices, viz., wheat at 71½ cents per bushel, corn at 42 3/8 cents per bushel, and oats at 31¼ cents per bushel, which would have given plaintiff on his said contract a net gain and profit of $1,937.50. That on February 3, 1903, the defendant purported to be acting under said contract with plaintiff, which said contract was then in full force and effect, delivered to plaintiff telegraphic quotations of the Chicago market of said commodities, which such quotations were as follows, wheat 74 3/8 cents per bushel, corn 43 1/8 cents per bushel, and oats 32 5/8 cents per bushel, and upon receipt of said quotations plaintiff requested the defendant to have the same repeated over its lines so as to be sure that same were correct, and the defendant having done so and reported to plaintiff that such quotations were correct, and the same being much lower than the said prices which plaintiff had contracted to deliver said commodities for, he, the plaintiff, relying upon the said quotations of the Chicago market so furnished him in Sweetwater, Tex., by defendant as alleged, he at once instructed his said agents in St. Louis to close his contracts by purchasing the grains and filling same. That said market quotations so furnished plaintiff by said defendant were incorrect and erroneous, for plaintiff shows that the prices of said commodities on the Chicago market at that time were as follows, wheat 78 7/8 cents per bushel, corn 44 5/8 cents per bushel, and oats 36¼ cents per bushel, which said market price plaintiff's said agents had to pay for said commodities at the time he so instructed them to close his contract as stated. That by reason of said false quotations of said market prices so made to plaintiff as alleged, the plaintiff was induced to purchase said commodities at an actual loss of $1,150 on the price he had contracted to furnish said grain at in fulfilling his said contracts. Plaintiff says that, if he had not been misled by the erroneous quotations of the said market prices of said grains as furnished him by the defendant, he would not have so instructed his said agents to fill his contract, and that he would have thereafter been able to have availed himself of the said decline in the market values of said commodities, and that he would have then upon said cheaper market have bought his quota of grain to have filled his said contracts, and would have thereby been able to realize, and would have realized, a profit of $1,937.50 on his said contract. Therefore the plaintiff has been and was actually damaged by reason of said false and erroneous quotations of said market prices in the full sum of $1,937.50.

Appellant answered by general demurrer and special exceptions, which it is not necessary to here set out, as appellant assigns no error upon the action of the court overruling the same, and further specially answered: That, if plaintiff sustained damages as alleged in his petition, the same were caused by the negligence of plaintiff in failing to instruct his agents, the Donovan Commission Company, at what price they should purchase grain on his account, and in failing, after he had been notified by said agents that they had purchased said grain at a higher price than he intended to pay, to take any steps to lessen the amount of his damages. And, further, to the effect that, if any loss had been sustained by appellee as alleged, the same accrued and resulted from certain gambling transactions, to wit, speculations in futures between plaintiff and other persons unknown to defendant, in which there was no intention to deliver any grain, but in which it was intended by the parties that only margins, or the difference between the contract price and the market price of grain, should be paid, and that said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1912
    ... ... 367; Christie Grain case, 198 U.S. 236; ... Logan v. Telegraph Co., 157 F. 582; Parker v ... Moore, 125 F. 807; Board of Trade v ... Telegraph Co., 34 So. 902; ... Ling v. Malcom, 77 Conn. 517; Western Union Tel ... Co. v. Bradford, 114 S.W. 686; Kingsburg v ... Kirwan, ... ...
  • Western Union Telegraph Company v. Osborn
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1918
    ...of exceptions is incomplete. 6. The court in its instructions properly stated the rule as to the measure of damages. 41 Ia. 458; 114 S.W. 686; 73 Ark. 205. Loss of profits is recoverable as damages. Ann. Cas. 1297. OPINION HART, J. This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of P. S......
  • Fenley v. Bewley Mills
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 25, 1934
    ...1054, and authorities therein cited; International Life Ins. Co. v. Stuart (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 1088; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Bradford (Tex. Civ. App.) 114 S. W. 686; Erwin v. White (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S.W.(2d) 867; Kennedy v. McCauley (Tex. Civ. App.) 248 S. W. 423; Texas & So......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT