Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/101/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:22:54+00:00

Document:
One who, in repudiation of a contract which binds him to make a certain payment, sends a telegram to stop a draft previously dispatched to meet the obligation cannot recover the amount from the telegraph company because of its negligent failure to deliver the telegram in time. P. 253 U. S. 113.
P and C agreed to sell and deliver, and H and L to buy, take, and receive certain shares of mining stock, "upon the following terms and conditions:" the price stated was to be paid part down and the remainder in equal payments on stated future dates; upon the making of the first payment, the shares, endorsed in blank, were to be deposited with a bank under an escrow agreement for delivery to H and L when the last payment was made; the bank was constituted the agent of P and C to receive the payments, and, in event of default by H and L, was authorized by the terms of the deposit to deliver all the shares to P and C, whereupon all payments theretofore made should be forfeited to them, and "all rights of each of the parties should forever cease and terminate." Held not an option terminable at the will of the vendees by failure to meet deferred payments, but an absolute agreement on their part to buy, the provision for forfeiture of past payments and termination of the agreement in case of their default being intended for the protection of the vendors, and exercisable at the vendors' election. P. 253 U. S. 110. Stewart v. Griffith, 217 U. S. 323.
The provision in such contract that, upon nonpayment of stipulated sums, the rights of each of the parties shall cease and determine is the equivalent of a provision that, in case of such default, the contract shall be "null and void." P. 253 U. S. 112.
Telegraph Company for failure to deliver a message sent by Hastings and Lange to the Lyon County Bank, Yerington, Nevada. A judgment was recovered against the telegraph company in the district court, which was affirmed in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 248 F. 656. The case is here upon writ of certiorari.
"Draft mailed you Saturday under mistake. Do not pay any sum to Pitt and Campbell. Return draft. Letter follows."
by the message to intercept payment by the bank on account of the contract through said Pitt and Campbell, and that, unless such message were transmitted, and delivered immediately to the bank before banking hours on April 30, 1907, it would receive the draft and make payment of the amount thereof to Pitt and Campbell, in which event the amount would be wholly lost to them, as they did not intend to continue under their contract, having learned that the stock was of little or no value. It was further found that thereupon the agent represented that the telegraph company would insure the immediate delivery of the message to the bank at Yerington if plaintiffs would pay the sum of $1.45, which sum was in excess of the company's regular charge. Plaintiff accepted the proposal, and paid the sum to the agent. In the presence of the plaintiffs, the agent thereupon wrote upon the message, immediately below the date thereof, the words, "Deliver immediately," and accepted the message for immediate transmission to the Town of Yerington for immediate delivery to the bank and agreed to immediately transmit and immediately deliver it to the bank for the plaintiffs, and assured the plaintiffs of such immediate transmission and immediate delivery thereof. The sum of $1.45 was in excess of the defendant's regular charge and usual toll, the usual charge for an unrepeated message being 98¢, and for a repeated message the sum of $1.47. The message was written upon a blank form of the telegraph company, which is set forth in the findings.
was the terminus of the telegraph company's lines for Yerington messages, and that, in order to transmit telegrams beyond Wabuska, it was necessary that they be transmitted from that point over the telephone line of the electric company to Yerington; that each of the companies received all messages offered it by the other company for further transmission, subject to the stipulations on telegraphic blanks, each company having and charging their separate toll; that the offices of the electric company and the telegraph company were both maintained in the Southern Pacific Railway Company station at Wabuska, and that the telephone instrument of the electric company was within a few feet of the telegraphic instruments of the telegraph company; that, at the time, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company employed an agent at Wabuska to attend to its railway business, and that, by an arrangement between the railroad company and the telegraph company, said agent was employed to attend to the telegraph business of the telegraph company at Wabuska; that, by agreement between the railroad company and the electric company, the agent of the railroad company was at the same time employed by the electric company to handle the telephone business of the electric company; that there was a regular stage line open between Yerington and Wabuska in April and May, 1907; that the distance between Yerington and Wabuska was approximately 11 miles, and could be traversed in the stage in about 1 1/2 hours.
to transmit the message to Wabuska until May 2, 1907, and wholly failed and neglected to deliver it to the electric company until May 2, 1907; that the delay in the transmission of the message occurred wholly on the lines of the telegraph company, and was caused by that company, and did not occur on the lines of the telephone of the Yerington Electric Company.
It is further found that, if the telegraph company had proceeded with reasonable promptness to transmit and deliver the message to the bank, the same would have reached Yerington before the bank had received the draft mailed to it as aforesaid, and it would not have placed the amount represented thereby to the credit of Pitt and Campbell, or either of them, or paid any amount thereon; that, by reason of the gross negligence of the telegraph company, the message was not delivered to the bank until May 2, 1907, between the hours of 8:30 and 9 a.m.; that the bank had received the draft, and thereafter, on April 30, had paid over the amount thereof in gold coin to Pitt and Campbell pursuant to the terms of the contract between the plaintiffs and Pitt and Campbell on account of the payment to be made on or before May 1, 1907, and had given credit to Hastings and Lange for the amount of said payment, all of which was done without any knowledge of said message or the determination of Hastings and Lange to recall said draft; that Hastings and Lange did not make any further payments on the purchase price of said shares of stock, but abandoned the contract with Pitt and Campbell and forfeited and lost all moneys paid thereon.
It was found that the 625,000 shares of stock of the Kennedy Consolidated Gold Mining Company have been at all times, and since and including April 29, 1907, practically valueless.
make the payments required; (2) the oral agreement for the transmission of the message was a binding agreement upon the Western Union Telegraph Company; (3) that, under the circumstances, the telegraph company was guilty of gross negligence in failing to transmit and deliver the message. The court thereupon affirmed the judgment of the district court for the amount of the payment, adding interest.
In our view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the correctness of the decision of the circuit court of appeals as to the binding obligation of the oral contract made with the agent of the telegraph company, or the question of negligence of the company in the transmission and delivery of the message. The right of Hastings and Lange to recover was based upon the theory that the contract was an option terminable by the act of the buyer in failing to make the payment on the contract, which payment, it is found, would not have been made had the message been promptly delivered. An option is a privilege given by the owner of property to another to buy the property at his election. It secures the privilege to buy, and is not, of itself, a purchase. The owner does not sell his property; he gives to another the right to buy at his election.
to make the payments required. The agreement contains positive provisions binding the owner to sell and the purchaser to buy upon the terms of the instrument. It is true the stock is to be deposited with the bank in escrow, and it is authorized to deliver the same to Pitt and Campbell upon default in payment. The findings do not show whether Pitt and Campbell took back the stock upon default of subsequent payments. There was no understanding that Pitt and Campbell should take back the stock when the payments were not made, and no agreement which put it in the power of the purchasers to relieve themselves of the obligations of their contract by failing to keep up the payments. The right of Pitt and Campbell to receive the stock from the bank and end the contract was stipulated; it was a provision inserted for their benefit, of which they might avail themselves at their election.
the vendor, and hardly less plainly for his benefit alone, except so far as it may have fixed a time when Stewart might have called for performance if he had chosen to do so, which he did not. This being so, the word 'void' means voidable at the vendor's election, and the condition may be insisted upon or waived, at his choice. Insurance Co. v. Norton, 96 U. S. 234; Oakes v. Manufacturers' Insurance Co., 135 Mass. 248, 249; Titus v. Glen Falls Insurance Co., 81 N.Y. 410, 419."
The condition in the contract in Stewart v. Griffith that nonpayment should render the contract null and void is the equivalent of the stipulation in the present agreement, much relied upon by the respondent, that, upon nonpayment of the stipulated sums, the rights of each of said parties should cease and determine. We think the attempted distinction between Stewart v. Griffith and the instant case is untenable.
by the purchasers at their will. Stewart v. Griffith, supra.
As the recovery of the amount paid, with interest, as adjudged in the circuit court of appeals, is founded upon its conclusion that the contract was an option, and the damages the amount paid and forfeited by the failure to stop the payment of the draft, and as we are not able to accept that view of the contract, it follows that the judgment of the circuit court of appeals must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.