Western Union Telegraph Company v. Osborn
| Decision Date | 07 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 152 |
| Citation | 206 S.W. 54,136 Ark. 68 |
| Parties | WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. OSBORN |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court, Jonesboro District; R. H Dudley, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Albert T. Benedict and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell Loughborough & Miles, for appellant.
1. Plaintiff could only recover for loss actually suffered and not for loss of expected profits. 1 Suth. on Dam. 17, 18; 1 Sedgwick on Dam., § 30; 13 Cyc. 22; 53 Ark. 434, 443; 54 Id. 22; 74 Id. 358, 360. See also 86 Ark 276; 59 S.W. 918; 83 Id. 364; 84 N.W. 1038; 41 Ia 458.
2. The court erred in permitting the plaintiff to state what he could have sold the cotton for if the New York market had been as shown in the report delivered to him. His statement is purely speculative.
3. The court erred in its instructions. The correct rule is not stated and the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
4. The contract was an interstate one.
Basil Baker and Horace Sloan, for appellee.
1. Telegraph companies are liable for losses occasioned by their errors or mistakes. 37 Cyc. 1699.
2. This was not an interstate contract.
3. The deal with Denton Bros. was closed before the error was discovered.
4. The contract was not voidable under the statute of frauds. 29 A. & E. Enc. Law (2 ed.), 811, 810; 9 A. & E. Enc. Pr. & Pl. 703.
5. The bill 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. 1914, 1297.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of P. S. Osborn against the Western Union Telegraph Company for damages claimed to have resulted from an error in a report of the cotton market made by the telegraph company to him. In September, 1916, P. S. Osborn entered into a written contract with the Western Union Telegraph Company to furnish him the market reports of the New York Cotton Exchange at stated intervals each day for a certain stipulated price. Osborn was engaged in business at Jonesboro during that fall as a cotton buyer. He bought cotton, not only in the city of Jonesboro, but in many towns adjacent thereto. The service reports of the New York future market was practically all that the buyers in his section of the State knew anything about. The price paid for cotton each day was based on the report of transactions on the New York Cotton Exchange telegraphed throughout the country. The telegraph company was engaged in the business of collecting these market reports and furnishing them to their customers. The contract in question was dated September 9, 1916, at Jonesboro, Arkansas. On November 27, 1916, during the life of the contract the telegraph company made a mistake in furnishing Osborn with the reports of the cotton market. The reports furnished him showed the price of cotton to be one cent higher than the real market price. On the same day Osborn purchased forty bales of cotton from Denton Bros. at Grubbs, Arkansas. He agreed to pay them twenty-one and some odd fraction of a cent per pound for the cotton, based on the report of the cotton exchange furnished him by the telegraph company. The real market price on the cotton was twenty and some odd fraction of a cent on that day. The total weight of the forty bales of cotton purchased by Osborn from Denton Bros. was 19,225 pounds. Osborn found out about the mistake of the telegraph company in furnishing him the cotton reports on the same day it was made, but it was after the purchase by telephone of the forty bales of cotton from Denton Bros. had been made.
It is first insisted that the contract in question was an interstate one. In this contention we can not agree. with counsel for the defendant. The telegraph company undertook to collect and furnish daily market reports of cotton from the New York Cotton Exchange. Osborn had nothing to do with the collection of the reports or their transmission. His contract was in writing, and was made with the telegraph company in the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas, and the reports were to be collected by the company and delivered to him in that city. There was no privity of contract whatever between him and the New York Cotton Exchange. His contract was with the telegraph company, and was made and was to be performed in the State of Arkansas. Osborn made a contract with it to furnish him daily market reports of the price of cotton. It is true these reports were based on the price of cotton in the city of New York, but Osborn was not interested in the manner or means used by the company in securing the information. Hence the transaction was not an interstate one.
It is next contended that Osborn can not recover because he learned of the mistake of the telegraph company in furnishing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Bagley & Co.
... ... 876 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. BAGLEY & COMPANY No. 96Supreme Court of ... v. Western Union Tel. Co., 136 Ark. 63, 206 S.W. 52, ... and Western Union Tel. Co. v. Osborn, 136 ... Ark. 68, 206 S.W. 54, are cases where the facts ... ... "While a telegraph company may not refuse to transmit or ... deliver messages ... ...
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Bagley & Co.
...The appellee, however, contends that the cases of Harris v. Western Union Tel. Co., 136 Ark. 63, 206 S. W. 52, and Western Union Tel. Co. v. Osborn, 136 Ark. 68, 206 S. W. 54, are cases where the facts are similar to the facts in the present case. Or, rather, he contends that the facts in t......