Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Koonce

• Decision Date: 20 November 1916
• Citation: 112 Miss. 173,72 So. 893
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. KOONCE

72 So. 893

112 Miss. 173

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. KOONCE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 20, 1916

October 1916

APPEAL from the circuit court of Forest county, HON. PAUL B JOHNSON, Judge.

Suit by G. B. Koonce, Sr., against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded.

Sullivan Conner & Sullivan and J. B. Harris, for appellant.

R. S. Hall and Watkins & Watkins, for appellee.

OPINION

HOLDEN, J.

The appellee, G. B. Koonce, Sr., recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Forest county for one thousand and five hundred dollars against the appellant Western Union Telegraph Company, as punitive damages for the alleged willful negligence and insulting conduct of the appellant's agents in handling a money order telegram from Hattiesburg, Miss., to Caldwell, Tex.; and from this judgment the telegraph company appeals here.

The facts in this case, as disclosed by the record, briefly stated, are: That the appellee, Koonce, on June 27, 1914 called at the Hattiesburg office of the appellant telegraph company, which office was in charge of George Wolfe, manager and delivered twenty-seven dollars to Wolfe to be transferred and delivered by telegraph to appellee's son, G. B. Koonce, Jr., at Caldwell, Tex., and paid a charge of one dollar for the service. G. B. Koonce, Jr., appellee's son, was in jail at Caldwell on a misdemeanor charge, and it was explained to Manager Wolfe, of the telegraph company at Hattiesburg, that the money was being sent for the purpose of releasing young Koonce from jail at Caldwell. The message was delivered to the telegraph office at twelve-thirty p. m., Saturday, June 27, 1914. It was discovered afterwards, by wire communication, that Caldwell, Tex., was not a money order transfer office or pay station. The message was then sent to Dallas, Tex., at two p. m. the same day, and the telegraph office at Dallas had the Dallas Bank wire its correspondent bank at Caldwell to pay the money to young Koonce at Caldwell. This method of having the money paid at Caldwell was adopted by the appellant, but it seems that young Koonce had paid his fine by some other arrangement, and was released from jail about noon of the same day the message was filed at Hattiesburg. The bank of Dallas closed on Saturday the 27th of June at one o'clock, and did not receive the telegram in time to attend to the matter until Monday, June 29th, when it promptly wired its correspondent bank at Caldwell to pay the money to young Koonce, in care of Sheriff Hensley. The Caldwell Bank immediately notified Sheriff Hensley; but the money could not be delivered to young Koonce because he had left Caldwell and could not be located by the sheriff. The Caldwell Bank held the money for three days, according to custom, and to see whether or not young Koonce would call for it, and then returned it to the Hattiesburg office through the same channels by which it had received it. The notice to refund the money finally reached the Hattiesburg office after some delay, and it was paid over to the attorney of the appellee. In the meantime, Mr. Koonce had called several times at the Hattiesburg office, and inquired whether or not the money had been delivered to his son, and was assured by Mr. Wolfe, the manager, that it had been delivered. Subsequently appellee Koonce was advised by mail that the money had not been delivered to his son at Caldwell, and he requested of Manager Wolfe a return to him of the twenty-seven dollars. Manager Wolfe did not return the twenty-seven dollars to the appellee at that time, because he had not been advised so to do by the Dallas office; but he again wired the Dallas office for information and authority to refund the money to Mr. Koonce, and finally received a reply at seven-thirty p. m. on the 6th of July, authorizing him to refund the twenty-seven dollars to Mr. Koonce, which he could not then do because Mr. Koonce had left the telegraph office and did not return. Afterwards the manager paid the money to ...