Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Watson

21 S.E. 457, 94 Ga. 202, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 47
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 30, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 21 S.E. 457 (Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia 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. Watson, 21 S.E. 457, 94 Ga. 202, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 47 (Ga. 1894).

Opinion

Simmons, Justice.

Under the facts in this case, which will be found set ■out in the official report, the damages were too remote .and uncertain to be the basis of a recovery for delay in delivering the telegram and for exposure of its contents to the plaintiff’s customer before delivery. The damages did not result from any loss dependent on the state of his contract with the customer as the contract actually existed at the time of the default by the telegraph company. Pitner, the customer, was to take from Watson two gins of the Brown Cotton Gin Company of New London, Conn. Pitner had waited for some time for the gins to be delivered to him, but had been disappointed. When the telegram was disclosed [206]*206to him, he went to Athens and. purchased another gin from a different person. This action is based on the theory that if the telegram had not been shown Pitner, Watson would have made a different arrangement with him, that he would -have induced Pitner to consent to use another gin until the gins he was expecting to receive should arrive, and thus get his commission on the sale of those gins. In order to do this, it would have been necessary to obtain the consent of Pitner, and Pitner might or might not have made the new arrangement with Watson. It is true Pitner says now that he would have made it, but we cannot tell whether he would have done so or not; he might have been in a different state of mind then'from the state of mind he was in at the trial of the case. He might have consented to it or might not have done so. On the whole, we think the damages are too remote and uncertain to be the basis of a recovery. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
158 F.2d 671 (Fifth Circuit, 1946)
Bryant v. State
30 S.E.2d 259 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Atlanta Baking Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.
25 S.E.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Kaler Produce Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.
1 S.E.2d 55 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Furstenburg v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
186 S.E. 697 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Friedlander Bros. v. Kassell
144 S.E. 143 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Cranford v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
138 S.E. 591 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Munson S. S. Line v. Horace Turner & Co.
81 So. 76 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Watson
80 S.E. 23 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Cronheim v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.
74 S.E. 78 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Bennett v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
106 N.W. 13 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Wilson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
52 S.E. 153 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Mills v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
51 S.E. 290 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 S.E. 457, 94 Ga. 202, 1894 Ga. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-union-telegraph-co-v-watson-ga-1894.