The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1881-03-05
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Reported Weekly by Jenkins a. shot
well. AttOrneys-aG-l.aw.
OCTOBER TERN. 1850.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH Co.,
VS..
TIM Il. COOPER.

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH Co.,
VS..
TIM Il. COOPER.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Copial
county, Hon. s. s. Calhoon, Judge.
Mr.. Cooper, travelling by rail, with hi,
wife and children, from Memphis, Tenn,
to Hazlehurst, Miss. delivered to the agent
OF the Western Union Telegraph Co., al
Grenada, Il message to be sent to a livery
stable keeper at Hazlehurst, in the follow.
ing words: 1910 Geo. W. Rogers, Halle.
hurst, Miss. BE on down train meet me
with hack. Tim Z. Cooper He paid
fifty cents-the charge demanded-but the
telegram was never delivered. Reaching
Hazlehurst at $3.50 O'Clock at night, he was
compelled to remain at the depot an hour
vey them home. He sued the Company
and had judgment for SOL.
r. N. Miller for appellant.
r.. ii. Thompson fer appellee.
CHALMERS, c. j.,
Heid-
are excessive if the plaintiff can recover
more than nominal damages or the price
for transmission of the message, but the
contention is that, admitting the default of
the Company, it is liable only for the money
received by it. The rule for the proper as
ccrtainment of damages in actions against
Telegraph Companies for failure to deliver
or for an imperfect delivery of messages
entrusted to them is of first impression
here, though much discussed elsewhere.
Some Of the cases make them liable for all
the consequential damages following from
their default rs by laws of the bargain
caused by the non-receipt or imperfect de-
livery OF the message, or any added burden
resulting therefrom. And this liability is
imposed upon thcm inongn neiiner lhe
message itself, or any instructions i'm rela-
ton to 1t admonish them of its importance,
and this too, even in cases where the mes
sage is cOuched in an unknown cipher.
Other cases repudiate SO harsh rule, and
hold that liability for consequential or re-
mote damages attach only when the Com
pany is warned by the terms of the mes
sage or by instructions accompanying it,
of the probable consequences that will en-
sue from its non-delivery. Where no such
information is given, it is held that NOM
inal damages only can be recovered. The
distinction between the two classes of cases
is not important in the case before us, be-
cause in this instance there is no claim for
damages beyond what the message itself
indicated must ensue from its non-delivery.
There is no demand for any business lost,
but simply damages properly to be award
ed from the failure to get carriage upon
the arrival of the train. The Company
must be liable not only for consequential or
remote damages, but for the reasonable
damages springing directly out of their
breach of duty TO pay back the money
would not do. for that would be an attempt
to rescind the contract already violated,
and to place the parties in statu quo after
an entire change in the situation of the
party aggrieved. In all the cases to which
we have been referred, there was liabil-
ity from business or pecuniary loss, but
there must be liability beyond mere nom
inal damages for Il failure to deliver do
nestle message. A Telegraph Company,
in undertaking to transmit II message must
be held as assuming to pay such damages
as the courts shall adjudge reason able Tor
failure to comply with contract. In this
case we are spared the consideration of the
propriety of the sum assessed, by agree
ment Of counsel. Indignant afiirment.
Judge Cooper takes no part in this easel