Potts v. Western Union Tel. Co.

15 Citing cases

  1. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kerr

    23 S.W. 564 (Tex. Civ. App. 1893)   Cited 11 times

    Walton, Hill Walton, for appellant. — 1. The court erred in overruling defendant's exceptions numbers one and two, and not abating plaintiff's suit, because the cause of action, if any, set out accrued to plaintiff's deceased husband; and the claim sued on was subject to administration as part of the estate of said decedent; and the petition failed to show that plaintiff was entitled to prosecute the suit. Damages for injury to wife during marital relations is community. Railway v. Burnett. 61 Tex. 638 [ 61 Tex. 638]; Railway v. Helm, 64 Tex. 147; Potts v. Tel. Co., 82 Tex. 545. 2.

  2. Telegraph Company v. Carter

    22 S.W. 961 (Tex. 1893)   Cited 57 times

    W.F. Robertson, for appellant in error. — To pursue to its legitimate conclusion the reasoning adopted by this court in each of the following named cases, means that the language used in the telegram under consideration was sufficient to put the telegraph company upon notice of the relationship of said parties, to-wit: Tel. Co. v. Bowen, 84 Tex. 476; Railway v. Loonie, 82 Tex. 323; Tel. Co. v. Nations, 82 Tex. 539; Potts v. Tel. Co., 82 Tex. 545 [ 82 Tex. 545]; Tel. Co. v. Rosentreter, 80 Tex. 406 [ 80 Tex. 406]; Tel. Co. v. Broesche, 72 Tex. 654 [ 72 Tex. 654]; Tel. Co. v. Edsall, 74 Tex. 329 [ 74 Tex. 329]; Tel. Co. v. Adams, 75 Tex. 531 [ 75 Tex. 531]; Tel. Co. v. Feegles, 75 Tex. 537 [ 75 Tex. 537]; Tel. Co. v. Moore, 76 Tex. 66. BROWN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

  3. Johnson v. W.U. Tel. Co.

    38 S.W. 64 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896)   Cited 7 times

    Leake, Henry, Reeves Greer, for appellant. — A wife whose husband is away from home, and out of the State, when her mother is in a dying condition, who has telegraphed to her absent husband the condition of her mother, with a request for his return home, which telegram the husband has answered with another telegram, stating that he would immediately return home, may suffer mental anguish, as a result of not being informed of her husband's intention to return home, for which damages may be recovered by the husband, if the delay, or want of such information, was caused by the negligence of the telegraph company in delivering the husband's telegram, when the telegraph company was advised of the importance of haste in the delivery of said message. Telegraph Co. v. Neighbors, 82 Tex. 539 [ 82 Tex. 539]; Potts v. Telegraph Co., 82 Tex. 545 [ 82 Tex. 545]; Railway v. Levy, 59 Tex. 542; Telegraph Co. v. Broesche, 72 Tex. 654; Telegraph Co. v. Simpson, 73 Tex. 422; Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 75 Tex. 531; Telegraph Co. v. Moore, 76 Tex. 66; Telegraph Co. v. Rosentracter, 80 Tex. 406. A.H. Field, for appellee. — A wife situated as appellant's wife was, had no right to build up in her mind a purely imaginary state of facts, hurt her feelings by believing an untruth, and recover damages, for the injury that she thus inflicted on herself.

  4. W.U. Tel. Co. v. Nagle Winn

    11 Tex. Civ. App. 539 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895)   Cited 6 times

    These facts, in connection with the words, "Kammerer renews orders," in the beginning of the message, takes this case out of the general rule as to cipher telegrams, and brings it within the doctrine announced in the Edsall and Adams cases cited and quoted from above. In support of the latter doctrine see Telegraph Co. v. Sheffield, 71 Tex. 570; Telegraph Co. v. Williford, 2 Texas Civ. App. 574[ 2 Tex. Civ. App. 574]; Telegraph Co. v. Bowen, 84 Tex. 478; Mitchell v. Telegraph Co., 5 Texas Civ. App. 527[ 5 Tex. Civ. App. 527]; Telegraph Co. v. Moore, 76 Tex. 68; Potts v. Telegraph Co., 82 Tex. 545 [ 82 Tex. 545]; Telegraph Co. v. Blanchard, 68 Ga. 299; Telegraph Co. v. Lathrop, 131 Ill. 575; Hadley v. Telegraph Co., 115 Ind. 191; Manville v. Telegraph Co., 37 Iowa 214. Appellant transmitted the message to its relay office in Galveston, where it was received and forwarded by one Phillips, who has since then been discharged by appellant on account of drunkenness.

  5. Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. Seiders

    9 Tex. Civ. App. 431 (Tex. Civ. App. 1895)   Cited 10 times
    In Texas Telegraph Telephone Co. v. Seiders, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 431, 29 S.W. 258, 263, in which a writ of error was refused, the court had this to say: "What is and what is not argument deducible from the testimony, or what an attorney may say in argument, is often a very nice question, and difficult to decide.

    The petition contains full allegations of mental suffering resulting from the failure to deliver the message, and it has been often held by the Supreme Court of this State, that mental suffering is an element of actual damages for negligently failing to deliver such a message. The law is settled by too many cases in this State to be disturbed by us. Stuart v. Tel. Co., 66 Tex. 580; Tel. Co. v. Simpson, 73 Tex. 427; Loper v. Tel. Co., 70 Tex. 689 [ 70 Tex. 689]; Tel. Co. v. Broesche, 72 Tex. 654 [ 72 Tex. 654]; Tel. Co. v. Cooper, 71 Tex. 507 [ 71 Tex. 507]; Tel. Co. v. Richardson, 79 Tex. 651 [ 79 Tex. 651]; Potts v. Tel. Co., 82 Tex. 545 [ 82 Tex. 545]; Tel. Co. v. Morris, 77 Tex. 173. The message was sent for the benefit of plaintiff, and he can recover, if injured by negligent failure to deliver it.

  6. Hunn v. Windsor Hotel Co.

    119 W. Va. 215 (W. Va. 1937)   Cited 35 times

    A trial was had and after both sides rested, the court directed a verdict for defendant. Upon the directed verdict, plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence considered favorably to her. Potts v. Union Co., 75 W. Va. 212, 83 S.E. 918. Under such consideration, the case would appear as follows: The defendant operates a hotel in the City of Wheeling and plaintiff has lodged at the hotel for the last eight years. The day before the injury complained of, defendant replaced the treads on a short flight of marble steps which leads down from the hotel lobby to the Main Street entrance.

  7. Western Union T. Co. v. Mobley

    249 S.W. 182 (Tex. 1923)   Cited 3 times

    x. 535; 4 Corpus Juris 1108, Sec. 3090 and Note 74 thereunder; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mobley, 220 S.W. 611. A telegraph message by J.L. Chapman, Farmersville, Texas, dated June 16, 1918, to J.H. Mobley, Room 206, S.P. Building, Houston, Texas, that "Mother died five wire if coming and when" was sufficient to give the telegraph company notice that the deceased was plaintiff's (defendant in error's) mother, and was therefore, sufficient to give the telegraph company notice of any lesser relationship that might have existed between plaintiff and deceased, and said message also charged the telegraph company with notice that plaintiff would probably desire to attend the funeral and burial of his step-mother, who was designated in such message as "mother". Western Union Tel. Co. v. Johnston, 210 S.W. 516; S.W. Tel. Tel. Co. v. Andrews, 169 S.W. 218; (second appeal) 178 S.W. 574; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Johnson, 226 S.W. 671, 111 Tex. 1; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Landry, 134 S.W. 849; Potts v. Western Union Tel. Co., 18 S.W. 604, 82 Tex. 545; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Luck, 91 Tex. 178, 41 S.W. 469, 66 Am. St. R. 869; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Olivarri, 104 Tex. 203 [ 104 Tex. 203], 135 S.W. 1158; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Coffin, 88 Tex. 94, 30 S.W. 896; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mobley, 220 S.W. 611. MR. JUDGE RANDOLPH delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section A.Page 530

  8. Western Union Telg. Co. v. Johnson

    111 Tex. 1 (Tex. 1920)   Cited 3 times

    We decline to hold that under a message from a mother to her son, advising of her husband's death or impending death, and asking that the son come immediately to her, the telegraph company will be relieved of any anticipation of mental distress on the mother's part in being deprived of the son's aid and consolation as the result of its negligence. In [Western U.] Telegraph Company v. Potts, 82 Tex. 546, 18 S.W. 604, in which the opinion of the Commission of Appeals was adopted by this court, and which was not overruled in the Luck Case, though the Nations Case (Western U. Tel. Co. v. Nations, 82 Tex. 539, 27 Am. St., 914, 18 S.W. 709) was, the message was from Mrs. M.E. Potts, addressed to William McCann, her brother, reading, "Come at once; Mr. Potts is not expected to live. (Signed) M.E. Potts.

  9. Herring v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

    108 Tex. 77 (Tex. 1916)   Cited 8 times
    In Herring v. Western Union Tel. Co., 108 Tex. 77, 185 S.W. 293, information outside of the language of the telegram imparted by the sender to the telegraph company's agent was given controlling effect.

    If the evidence is not sufficient to put the company upon notice that the message was intended for a child of the deceased, it is sufficient to put the company upon notice that it was intended for a child or a friend, and the telegraph company, having failed to make inquiry as to who in fact it was intended for, is charged with notice that it was intended for a child and that that child, Mrs. Herring, would be expected to act upon the information contained in the message. Herring v. Western Union, 127 S.W. 882; Western Union v. Adams, 75 Tex. 531 [ 75 Tex. 531]; Western Union v. Landry, 134 S.W. 848; Western Union v. Russell, 31 S.W. 698; Western Union v. Hankins, 110 S.W. 543; Western Union v. Stubbs, 43 Texas Civ. App. 132[ 43 Tex. Civ. App. 132], 94 S.W. 1083; Western Union v. Grigsby, 29 S.W. 406; Western Union v. Bell, 90 S.W. 714; Potts v. Western Union, 82 Tex. 545, 18 S.W. 604; Western Union v. Feegles, 74 Tex. 537 [ 74 Tex. 537]; Western Union v. Moore, 76 Tex. 66 [ 76 Tex. 66]; Western Union v. Coffin, 88 Tex. 94 [ 88 Tex. 94]; Western Union v. Edsall, 74 Tex. 329 [ 74 Tex. 329]; Western Union v. True, 105 Tex. 344 [ 105 Tex. 344]; Western Union v. Riviere, 174 S.W. 650. Wagstaff Davidson and N.L. Lindsley (Geo.

  10. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Olivarri

    104 Tex. 203 (Tex. 1911)   Cited 3 times

    — That the translation shows a message concerning the serious illness of the parties interested and on its face giving the telegraph company full notice of its importance to those mentioned in the message, can not be doubted. Western U. Tel. Co. v. Simmons, 93 S.W. 1084; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Landry, 108 S.W. 461; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Rosentrater, 80 Tex. 407; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Lovett, 24 Texas Civ. App. 84[ 24 Tex. Civ. App. 84]; Telegraph Co. v. Moore, 76 Tex. 66 [ 76 Tex. 66]; Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 75 Tex. 531 [ 75 Tex. 531]; Telegraph Co. v. Feagles, 75 Tex. 537 [ 75 Tex. 537]; Telegraph Co. v. Carter, 85 Tex. 580 [ 85 Tex. 580]; Potts v. Telegraph Co., 82 Tex. 545. We also think the above cases sufficiently answer appellant's contention, that the agent receiving the telegram must understand its meaning or otherwise the defendant company would not be liable for its negligence in handling the message.