Case Name: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. HILL
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-06-26
Citations: 162 S.W. 382
Docket Number: 
Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. HILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 382–386

Head Matter:
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. HILL.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
June 26, 1913.
On Rehearing, Dec. 18, 1913.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1914.)
On Rehearing.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 743 ) — Assignments of Error — Sufficiency—Rules oe Couet.
An assignment of error, though not conforming to Courts of Civil Appeals rule 25 (142 S. W. xii), requiring assignments to refer to that portion of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of, will be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2999, 3011; Dec. Dig. § 743. ]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 1040 ) — Harmless Error — Erroneous Rulings on Pleadings.
The error in overruling special exceptions to the allegations of the petition, bearing only on the question of the damages recoverable, and in admitting evidence in support of the allegations, is harmless, where the court in its instructions directs the jury not to consider the evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4089-4105; Dec. Dig. § 1040. ]
3. Limitation of Actions (§ 138 ) — Commencement of Action — Issuance and Service of Citation.
Where plaintiff filed a petition before the running of limitations, and prayed therein for issuance of a citation, and in good faith intended that process should at once issue and be served, and he gave a bond for costs, which entitled him as a matter of right to the issuance of a citation before the running of limitations, and both parties proceeded on the theory that defendant was in court, and the fact that citation had not been served was not discovered until limitations had run and the parties had gone to trial after a continuance, the action was not barred by limitations, since plaintiff and his counsel were not responsible for the failure of the clerk to perform his duty and issue citation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Cent. Dig. § 573; Dec. Dig. § 138. ]
4. Telegraphs and Telephones (§ 66 ) — Delay of Messages — Negligence—Evidence.
In an action against a telegraph company for delay in the delivery of a message, evidence held to support a finding that the company negligently delayed the' telegram.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cent. Dig. §§ 61-63; Dec. Dig. § 66. ]
5. Telegbaphs and Telephones (§ 37 ) — Delivery of Messages — Sufficiency.
Where a telegram is addressed to the addressee in care of another person, a delivery to either, if promptly made, is a performance of the telegraph company’s duty; but a delivery at the office of such person to another having no authority to receive telegraph messages is not a sufficient delivery.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cent. Dig. §§ 23, 24, 29, 30, 32; Dec. Dig. § 37. ]
6. Telegbaphs and Telephones (§ 71 ) — Delay in Deliveey of Messages — Damages —Excessive Damages.
A verdict for $1,500 for delay in the delivery to the sendee of a message announcing the illness of his wife, thereby preventing him from reaching her until the illness had so far progressed as to render her practically unconscious and render her unable to converse with him or recognize him, and so remaining until her death a few days later, was not excessive.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cen,t. Dig. § 74; Dec. Dig. § 71. ]
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County ; A. M. Walthall, Judge.
Action by C. S. Hill against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment
for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
Geo. H. Fearons, of New York City, and Beall & Kemp, of El Paso, for appellant. Coldwell & Sweeney, of El Paso, for appellee.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
This suit was instituted by Hill against the appellant for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of delay in delivery of a telegram delivered to appellant for transmission and delivery to appellee at Ft. Worth, Tex. Upon trial before a jury, verdict was rendered in appel-lee's favor for the sum of $1,500, and judgment thereon was accordingly rendered.
An inspection of the assignments of error herein as they appear in the record discloses that they do not comply with that provision of rule 25 for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii) as amended January 24, 1912, requiring assignments to refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of. Because of the failure of the assignments of error, as they appear in the record, to comply with this provision of the rule, the same will therefore not be considered. In an opinion rendered upon rehearing in El Paso Electric Railway Company v. Lee, 157 S. W. 748, recently filed, and not yet reported, we at length state our reasons for declining to consider assignments of error which do not comply with said amended rule. We here now refer to this opinion as stating in full our reasons for declining to consider the assignments in this case. We also refer to the following additional authorities: Railway Co. v. Pemberton, 155 S. W. 652; Davidson v. Patton, 149 S. W. 757; Murphy v. Earl, 150 S. W. 486; Railway Co. v. Ledbetter, 153 S. W. 646; Railway Co. v. Gray, 154 S. W. 229; Jones v. Edwards, 152 S. W. 727; Allen v. Kitchen, 156 S. W. 331; Railway Co. v. Emerson, 152 S. W. 469; Nunn v. Yeale, 149 S. W. 758; Astin v. Mosteller, 152 S. W. 495; Wright v. Wright, 155 S. W. 1015; Railway Co. v. Cummins, 156 S. W. 542; Elmo Rock Co. v. Sowders, 155 S. W. 270; Lee v. Moore, 162 S. W. 437; Brewer v. Blythe, 158 S. W. 786; Benton v. Kuykendall, 160 S. W. 438; and Railway Co. v. White, 160 S. W.. 1128; the last four cited cases recently decided by the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, and not yet officially reported, but are cited in Railway Co. v. Cummins, supra.
It is a matter of regret to the court that it should be called upon in this cause to enforce the provisions of the amended rules, for the reason that the distinguished counsel who represent the appellant are unusually observant of the rules, and rarely, if ever, has this court been called upon in their cases to overlook violations thereof. In this particular case, the nonobservance was, no doubt, due to an inadvertence, which in turn was doubtless due to the fact that the amendments were of comparatively recent date. We deferred enforcing the amendments until a sufficient time had elapsed to permit the members of the bar to become familiar therewith, and, after the lapse of such time, we deem it our duty to rigidly enforce the same. From the number of records recently filed in this court in which the amendments t are disregarded, it is evident that in no other manner can their observance be enforced.
Affirmed.