Court Opinion

ID: 9826129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:23:20.806899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:51.619600
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hydrick.
I concur in the result. There should be a new trial because plaintiff’s seventh request was inapplicable to the facts of the case and prejudicial to defendant. Dr. Langford was a member of the firm of Langford Brothers, whose store was across the street from the telegraph office. . The testimony is that when he was not attending calls, he was usually about the store, and when he was absent, telegrams for him were nearly always left at the store, though not by his instructions or request. The agent of defendant who received this message testified that *185be remembered receiving it, and thought that it was left at the store, where most of the telegrams for the- doctor were delivered, or left for him, when he could not be found. He had no réceipt for it of positive recollection of its having been left at the store, but felt sure it was delivered somewhere. Even if the company should, under some circumstances, inform the sender of nondelivery and the reasons therefor, it was not required to do so under the facts of this case, because it was supposed that a proper delivery had been made. It is unnecessary in this view to decide whether the failure to send a service message, when the circumstances require the sending of one, would give rise to a separate and distinct cause of action, or is a mere incident to the cause of action arising from the failure to deliver the principal message.
Mr. Justice Gage dissents.