Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Krichbaum

• Decision Date: 10 May 1906
• Citation: 145 Ala. 409,41 So. 16
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. KRICHBAUM.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So. 16

145 Ala. 409

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. KRICHBAUM.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 10, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. A. Coleman, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by John W. Krichbaum against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Walker Tillman, Campbell & Walker, for appellant.

Lane &amp White, for appellee.

McCLELLAN C.J.

The uncontroverted evidence was that the defendant kept a book in its Birmingham office for the patrons of that office to set down their particular addresses in it, so as to facilitate and insure the delivery of messages to them. It is further shown without conflict that plaintiff's name and address were registered in this book at the time the telegram involved in this case was received at that office for delivery to him. That the telegram was delivered to the defendant at another of its offices by plaintiff's agent who for plaintiff paid the toll, for transmission to Birmingham and delivery there to plaintiff, and was in due time transmitted to the Birmingham office, addressed to plaintiff, but was never delivered to the plaintiff, was also proved beyond dispute. These undisputed facts entitled the plaintiff to the affirmative charge. This is none the less true for the fact--assuming it to be a fact--that after receiving the message the Birmingham office wired the initial office to "get street address," or "get some address," or "get better address," and plaintiff's agent negligently failed upon being apprised by defendant's agent at the forwarding office, to give a better or any other address, and assuming, also, that but for this negligence the message would have been delivered to plaintiff. After this negligent omission of plaintiff's agent as well as before the duty of delivery rested on the defendant, and before and after by the exercise of due care and diligence by the defendant's employés at Birmingham the message could and would have been delivered. The transcript does not show that the affirmative charge was given for plaintiff, or even requested by him; but that is immaterial. The plaintiff being thus entitled to the affirmative charge on the undisputed evidence, other rulings bearing upon incidental or collateral matters--as, for instance, the issue whether plaintiff's agent was at fault in not supplying a more particular address, the contention that defendant...