Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Jones

Indiana Supreme Court

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Jones

18 N.E. 529, 116 Ind. 361, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 146

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1888

DocketNo. 13,817

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 N.E. 529 (Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Jones, 18 N.E. 529, 116 Ind. 361, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 146 (Ind. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The facts stated by the court and the conclusions of law drawn by it, very clearly show that the appellant was held liable for the statutory penalty because it negligently failed to deliver a telegram sent by the appellee to Samuel Jones. There is no finding of bad faith or partiality, and none can be presumed.

It is quite clear that, in an action to recover a penalty imposed by law, it can not be presumed, in aid of a special finding, that the defendant violated the law; on the contrary, the presumption is that the law was obeyed and the statutory duty performed. The case must, therefore, be regarded as. one of negligence only, and the question is whether, under the act of 1885, a telegraph company can be made to pay the penalty prescribed by that act where the only wrong proved is a negligent one. This question is settled against the appellee by the decisions of this court. Western U. Tel. Co. v. Swain, 109 Ind. 405; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Steele, 108 Ind. 163.

It is to be remembered that the right to a penalty is purely a statutory one, and a penalty is only recoverable in the cases prescribed by the statute. It is also to be remembered that a penal statute can not be extended by construction. It follows, therefore, that unless a statute clearly gives the right to a penalty none exists. As the act of 1885 does not prescribe a penalty for a negligent breach of duty, no penalty can be recovered. We are not, it may not be improper to remark, dealing with a claim for damages, but with a claim to a statutory penalty.

Judgment reversed.

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

Elliott, J.

The facts stated by the court and the conclusions of law drawn by it, very clearly show that the appellant was held liable for the statutory penalty because it negligently failed to deliver a telegram sent by the appellee to Samuel Jones. There is no finding of bad faith or partiality, and none can be presumed.

It is quite clear that, in an action to recover a penalty imposed by law, it can not be presumed, in aid of a special finding, that the defendant violated the law; on the contrary, the presumption is that the law was obeyed and the statutory duty performed. The case must, therefore, be regarded as. one of negligence only, and the question is whether, under the act of 1885, a telegraph company can be made to pay the penalty prescribed by that act where the only wrong proved is a negligent one. This question is settled against the appellee by the decisions of this court. Western U. Tel. Co. v. Swain, 109 Ind. 405; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Steele, 108 Ind. 163.

It is to be remembered that the right to a penalty is purely a statutory one, and a penalty is only recoverable in the cases prescribed by the statute. It is also to be remembered that a penal statute can not be extended by construction. It follows, therefore, that unless a statute clearly gives the right to a penalty none exists. As the act of 1885 does not prescribe a penalty for a negligent breach of duty, no penalty can be recovered. We are not, it may not be improper to remark, dealing with a claim for damages, but with a claim to a statutory penalty.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.E. 529, 116 Ind. 361, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-union-telegraph-co-v-jones-ind-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack