Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Garthright

44 So. 212, 151 Ala. 413, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 532
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 6, 1907·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

Both counts of the complaint seek a recovery for a breach of the contract for the transmission of the message, and the complaint was not subject to the ground of demurrer proceeding upon the theory of a misjoinder. The first contains averments of a negligent failure to deliver the telegram, but this is merely descriptive of the mode in which the contract was broken. — W. U. Tel. Co. v. Crumpton, 138 Ala. 632, 36 South. 517.

The first count, as amended, avers that the contract for the transmission of the message was made with the plaintiff, through her agent, Shannon, and was not subject to the second ground of the demurrer as refiled to the other count after amendment. — W. U. Tel. Co. v. Manker, 145 Ala. 418, 41 South. 850; W. U. T. Co. v. Wilson, 93 Ala. 35, 9 South. 414, 30 Am. St. Rep. 23.

The third and fourth grounds of the demurrer relate to the claim of damages for mental anguish. The complaint sets out a good claim for actual damages, the toll paid. — W. U. T. Co. v. Krichbaum, 145 Ala. 409, 41 [416]*416South. 16; Westmoreland v. W. U. T. Co., 150 Ala. —, 43 South. 79. And if it did not set up a good claim for mental anguish, which we need not decide, it was not a demurrable defect. When the complaint makes out a cause of action for the recovery of any damages, hut combines in addition thereto a claim for nonrecoverable damages, the proper way to rid it of the improper claim is, hot by demuiúer, but by motion to strike, objection to the evidence,' or special instructions to the jury. — Westmoreland's Case, supra; Kennon Brothers v. W. U. T. Co., 92 Ala., 399, 9 South. 200; Daugherty v. A. U. T. Co., 75 Ala. 168, 51 Am. Rep. 435; W. U. T. Co. v. Milton, (Fla.) 43 South. 495.

The paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions cannot be considered, as it was not properly signed, and is controlled both in law and fact by the case of White v. Roe, 151 Ala. —, 44 South. 211.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ.„ concur.

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

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Garthright, 44 So. 212, 151 Ala. 413, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 532 (Ala. 1907).

44 So. 212 (Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Garthright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
104 So. 517 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Chas. E. Morris & Co. v. Bynum Bros.
93 So. 467 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Barbour
89 So. 299 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Morgan v. Whatley & Whatley
87 So. 846 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Louisville N. R. Co. v. Clark
87 So. 676 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Louisville N. R. Co. v. James
86 So. 906 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
National Surety Co. v. O'Connell
81 So. 146 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Littleton
77 So. 565 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Fitzpatrick v. Age-Herald Pub. Co.
63 So. 980 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Goldstein v. Self
62 So. 369 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Anniston Cordage Co.
59 So. 757 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Knight
57 So. 253 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)
Western Union Telegraph v. Burns
51 So. 373 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)