Skip to main content
· 12/15/1882

Womack v. W. U. Tel. Co.

Citations

  • 58 Tex. 176
  • 1882 Tex. LEXIS 229

Syllabus

<p>1. Notice. — One sending a telegraphic message is charged with notice of the printed conditions of the blank form on which his message is written.</p> <p>2. Telegram — Negligence. — A telegram was written and delivered to a telegraph company at Marshall, Texas, to be sent to New York, as follows:</p> <p>“S. M. Swenson, Son & Co., 80 Wall Street, New York:</p> <p>“ If not already, close out my Decembers. Buy four hundred May deliveries. Answer. John F. Womack.”</p> <p>The telegram was incorrectly transmitted by adding the letter “d ” to the word “close,” whereby the sender claimed to have suffered loss. No order was given by the sender to have the message repeated to guard against mistakes. In an action for damages against the company, held,</p> <p>(1) The mere fact that the message received at New York differed as stated from that sent from Marshall was not of itself evidence of such negligence as to entitle plaintiff to recover a larger amount than the sum paid for the message.</p> <p>(2) The sender who signed the message was bound to take notice of the printed terms thereon, which required it to be repeated in order to hold the company liable for any amount beyond the sum paid for the message. His ignorance of, or omission to read the printed form, cannot relieve him from being bound by his signature.</p> <p>(3) This case distinguished from those in which printed forms were used in bills of lading, and other instruments signed, not by the shipper or sender, but the party to be bound.</p> <p>3. Telegraph companies. — Telegraph companies can, by express contract or by proper rules and regulations contained in printed notices or otherwise, and which are brought to the knowledge of those with whom they-deal under such circumstances as to create an implied contract, limit their liability for delays and errors in transmitting and delivering messages, except when caused by the misconduct, fraud or want of due care on the part of the company, its servants or agents.</p

Judges: Bonner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.