Tobin v. W. U. Telegraph Co.

Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas

Tobin v. W. U. Telegraph Co.

23 A. 324, 146 Pa. 375, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1233

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

DecidedJanuary 4, 1892

DocketNo. 12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A. 324 (Tobin v. W. U. Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tobin v. W. U. Telegraph Co., 23 A. 324, 146 Pa. 375, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1233 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam :

The learned judge below could not have withdrawn this case from the jury, as requested by defendant’s first point. See first specification. There was a palpable error in the telegram, by which the plaintiff was misled and by reason thereof incurred considerable expense in a fruitless journey to South Carolina. It is no answer to this to say that some persons might not have been misled by such a blunder, and would have made further inquiry before starting upon the journey. In point of fact, the plaintiff was misled, and we cannot say he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Nor do we think the fact that the message was not repeated has any bearing upon the case. See second specification. The condition in repeated messages applies to the person sending the message, not to its recipient: W. U. Teleg. Co. v. Richman, 19 W. N. 569 (6 Cent. R. 565). In N. Y. etc. Teleg. Co. v. Dryburg, 35 Pa. 298, it was held that the company was not excused from liability to third persons for damages sustained by the negligent transmission of an erroneous message, by the fact that the sender did not pay for its being repeated back, in accordance with a rule of the company whereby they limited their responsibility to the transmission of messages that should be repeated back. What has been said covers the remaining specifications of error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam :

The learned judge below could not have withdrawn this case from the jury, as requested by defendant’s first point. See first specification. There was a palpable error in the telegram, by which the plaintiff was misled and by reason thereof incurred considerable expense in a fruitless journey to South Carolina. It is no answer to this to say that some persons might not have been misled by such a blunder, and would have made further inquiry before starting upon the journey. In point of fact, the plaintiff was misled, and we cannot say he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Nor do we think the fact that the message was not repeated has any bearing upon the case. See second specification. The condition in repeated messages applies to the person sending the message, not to its recipient: W. U. Teleg. Co. v. Richman, 19 W. N. 569 (6 Cent. R. 565). In N. Y. etc. Teleg. Co. v. Dryburg, 35 Pa. 298, it was held that the company was not excused from liability to third persons for damages sustained by the negligent transmission of an erroneous message, by the fact that the sender did not pay for its being repeated back, in accordance with a rule of the company whereby they limited their responsibility to the transmission of messages that should be repeated back. What has been said covers the remaining specifications of error.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 324, 146 Pa. 375, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tobin-v-w-u-telegraph-co-pactcomplallegh-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack