Guilford & Deal v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Guilford & Deal v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

50 So. 112, 163 Ala. 1, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 470

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 10, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 So. 112 (Guilford & Deal v. Western Union Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guilford & Deal v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 50 So. 112, 163 Ala. 1, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 470 (Ala. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWDELL, C. J.

This is an action for damages for failure to deliver a telegraphic message. The evidence showed that the message related to a car of brick, and was as follows: “7-27-07. To A. C. Crawford, Sampson, Ala.: You can unload brick, everything O. K. Unload Monday. Guilford & Deal.” In addition to this particular car load of brick, for which damages are claimed on account of the loss of sale of same to Crawford by reason of the' nondelivery of the telegram, the/plaintiffs claimed damages in the loss of the sale of 150,000 other brick which Crawford had agreed to purchase of them conditionally upon his getting the particular car load. The only error assigned on the record is based on exception reserved to a certain part of the court’s oral charge to the jury, set out in the record, and which related to the measure of damages recoverable under the facts of the case.

No reference is made in the telegram to the sale of ■150,000 brick that would put the defendant company on notice of the existence of any such contract between plaintiff and Crawford, nor is there any pretense in the evidence that such fact was communicated to the agent of the telegraph company. These were special circumstances collateral to the contract with the company in the transmission of the message, and unless known or [4]*4communicated to the defendant, or its agent, could not be made the basis of special damages for the nondelivery of the telegram in question. This principal finds -support in the case of Daughtery v. Am. Tel Co., 75 Ala. 168, 51 Am. Rep. 435, and 89 Ala. 191, 7 South. 660, and in W. U. T. Co. v. Way, 83 Ala. 542, 4 South. 844, cited by counsel for appellant. The paid of the oral charge of the court, excepted to, correctly stated the law under the undisputed evidence as to recoverable damages.

This being the only question in the case, and there being no error shown, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Stmpson, Mayfield and Sayre, JJ., concur. ,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOWDELL, C. J.

This is an action for damages for failure to deliver a telegraphic message. The evidence showed that the message related to a car of brick, and was as follows: “7-27-07. To A. C. Crawford, Sampson, Ala.: You can unload brick, everything O. K. Unload Monday. Guilford & Deal.” In addition to this particular car load of brick, for which damages are claimed on account of the loss of sale of same to Crawford by reason of the' nondelivery of the telegram, the/plaintiffs claimed damages in the loss of the sale of 150,000 other brick which Crawford had agreed to purchase of them conditionally upon his getting the particular car load. The only error assigned on the record is based on exception reserved to a certain part of the court’s oral charge to the jury, set out in the record, and which related to the measure of damages recoverable under the facts of the case.

No reference is made in the telegram to the sale of ■150,000 brick that would put the defendant company on notice of the existence of any such contract between plaintiff and Crawford, nor is there any pretense in the evidence that such fact was communicated to the agent of the telegraph company. These were special circumstances collateral to the contract with the company in the transmission of the message, and unless known or [4]*4communicated to the defendant, or its agent, could not be made the basis of special damages for the nondelivery of the telegram in question. This principal finds -support in the case of Daughtery v. Am. Tel Co., 75 Ala. 168, 51 Am. Rep. 435, and 89 Ala. 191, 7 South. 660, and in W. U. T. Co. v. Way, 83 Ala. 542, 4 South. 844, cited by counsel for appellant. The paid of the oral charge of the court, excepted to, correctly stated the law under the undisputed evidence as to recoverable damages.

This being the only question in the case, and there being no error shown, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Stmpson, Mayfield and Sayre, JJ., concur. ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 112, 163 Ala. 1, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilford-deal-v-western-union-telegraph-co-ala-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack