Case Name: Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lambert
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1926-02-01
Citations: 141 Miss. 580
Docket Number: No. 26396
Parties: Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lambert.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 580–584

Head Matter:
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lambert.
(Division A.
Feb. 1, 1926.)
[106 So. 819.
No. 26396.]
Brady, Dean & Hobbs and Francis Starlt, for appellant.
G. Wood Magee, Geo. N. Magee and C. E. Gibson, for appellee.
Argued orally by Herman Dean, for appellant, and G. Wood Magee, for appellee.
Corpus Juris-Cyc. References; Tel. and Tel., 37 Cyc., p. 1690, n. 41.

Opinion:
Smith, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a judgment for damages alleged to have been sustained by the appellee because of delay by the appellant in delivering a telegram which it received at New Orleans, La., for transmission to the appellee at Montieello, Miss. The telegram was written by the sender on one of the appellant's regular blanks therefor, on which appears the following stipulation, which has been approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission :
"The company will not be liable for damages or statutory penalties in any case where the claim is not presented in writing' within sixty days after the message is filed with the company for transmission."
The appellee himseif filed no claim for damages with the appellant, but contends that a claim therefor was filed for him by the sender of a telegram. The only evi dence oil which this claim is based appears in a letter written to the sender of the telegram by the appellant's manager, at New Orleans, La., a few daj's after the sending' of the telegram, which .reads as follows1:
The Western Union Telegraph Company. "William A. Porteous, City Superintendent.
"New Orleans, La., October 17, 1923.
"Oliver PI. Van Horn Company, Inc., 522-534 Camp Street, New Orleans, La.
Gentlemen: Referring to your letter of October 9, relative to handling of telegram of October 3, to Mr. J. W. Lambert, Montieello, Miss., we find that the message filed at 8:80 p. m., October '3, was not received in Monticello until 8:30 a. m., October 4, due to that office being' closed. Our office at Montieello was unable to locate addressee on October 4, and delivery was not made until the following day. The dela}?-, -while very much regretted, was unavoidable under the circumstances. Tours very truly, [Signed] Wm. A. Porteous, City Superintendent. ' '
It does not appear from this letter that either the sender or the sendee of the telegram, intended to claim damages for the delay in its delivery, and, whatever else such notice must contain, it must at least convey the idea that damages will be complained of by the person aggrieved by the delay in the delivery of the telegram. We do not understand the case of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Gzizek, 264 U. S. 281, 44 S. Ct. 328, 68 L. Ed. 682, to hold otherwise, for the letter there written to the telegraph company by the sendee of the telegram, which had not been delivered, indicated that he intended to hold the company for damages therefor.
The judgment of the court will be reversed, and judgment for the appellant will be rendered here.
Reversed and judgment here.