Siegel v.  Western Union Tel. Co.

312 Ill. App. 86 (1941)

 

FRIEND, Justice.

Plaintiff brought suit against the Western Union Telegraph Company for damages resulting from its failure to transmit promptly a telegraphic money order. The court limited his damages to the charge made for transmitting the money order and entered judgment accordingly for $1.92.

. . .

The cause was submitted and tried by the court upon stipulated facts. It appears that on November 23, 1938, plaintiff delivered to the Western Union Telegraph Company $200 with instructions to transmit this sum to P. W. Gunkel, a friend of plaintiff residing at Rogers Smith Hotel in Washington, D. C. The money was to be wagered on a horse named Mintson, to win, at the pari mutuel machines at Bowie Race Track in Maryland, where pari mutuel wagering is legalized under the laws of that state. The money order was negligently misdirected to New York City and was ultimately delivered to Gunkel several hours after the race had been run November 24, 1938. Mintson won and the pari mutuel machines paid $18.50 for each $2 wagered. Had plaintiff’s $200 been placed the odds would have been reduced to $16.50. Deducting the principal of the money order which was returned to plaintiff he claims to have sustained damages to the extent of $1,450 through defendant’s negligence.

. . .

[W]here the telegraph company has notice, at the time of making the contract, of such special facts or circumstances as to justify the conclusion that special or unusual damages are within the contemplation of the parties. Lust v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 243 Ill.App. 624; 37 Cyc. 1775. The exception dates back to the early case of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exchequer 341 (1854), and it has since been generally held that whether or not a telegraph company incurs any special liability, for its default in transmitting money, depends on whether it has been put on notice of circumstances such as would reasonably have led an ordinarily prudent person to anticipate consequential losses or injuries from a failure to deliver the message. 80 A.L.R. 301, (citing cases); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hall, 4 Cir., 287 F. 297. It was stipulated in the case at bar that defendant had no notice or knowledge of the purpose for which the money was being transmitted.

[The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages over $1.92.]