Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Dozier
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Dozier
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, and should have been set aside. There is no warrant in the evidence, in any view of the law, for a recovery of any actual damage, for none is shown, it not appearing that Dr. Dozier sustained any by reason of the non-receipt of a message requesting his services. The truth appears to be that no message was sent to Dr. Dozier, but that, an ineffectual effort having been made to get Dr. Walker at Nicholson, and Dr. Watkins at Hattiesburg, the operator at Poplarville inquired of the operator at Hattiesburg if Dr. Dozier was in the town and was informed in reply that he had removed to Gulf-Port, and this being supposed to be true, no message was sent to Dr. Dozier. It is certain that no message to him was charged for or paid for, and therefore nothing was received by the company on this account. It appears that the operator, Mr. Atkins, was in full sympathy with those trying to procure a physician, and at his own instance, and
The only messages actually written for transmission were to Dr. Walker at Nicholson, and to Dr. Watkins at Hattiesburg, and they were transmitted. If it be true that Stewart and Flanagan or either told the operator to wire Dr. Dozier, the question is, whether that was the delivery of a message, within the meaning of the law, for the non-transmission and delivery of which liability would be incurred by the company. In the absence of satisfactory evidence of a known course of business by the telegraph company to receive verbal messages orally delivered to operators for transmission, we are not willing to sanction the proposition that failure to transmit such a message is a ground for recovery against the company, either by statute or common law. It is common knowledge that messages are required to be written, and upon the blanks of the company, and it would be hazardous to pursue any other course. The very expression as to a message delivered to be sent, carries with it the idea of a written or printed message, and it would seem, that for one to talk to the operator as to the message he desired to send could not, in view of the course of business of telegraph companies, impose any liability on such company.
Reversed and remcmded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. A. M. Dozier
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Telegraph Companies. Voluntary message. Case in judgment. Where persons requiring surgical aid have telegraphed ineffectually for physicians, and the operator gratuitously inquires in their behalf of the company’s operator in'another town if a certain physician is there, and is answered that he is not, whereupon no message is sent to such physician, the latter cannot recover damages of the company, althou’gh he was in fact in the town and would have responded to the call if notified. 2. Same. Verbal messages. Course of business. It is common knowledge that messages are required to be written. In the absence of proof of a course of business by a telegraph company to re-receive for transmission messages orally delivered to operators, the failure to send such a message is not ground for recovery against the company, either by statute or common law. So held in this ease, where plaintiff's evidence tended to show that a message was orally dictated to the operator, who was told that it would be paid for, and the operator turned to his instrument as if to send it.