Clement v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
FeoM the circuit court of Tallahatchie county. IToN. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Clement, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the telegraph company was defendant there. From a judgment for defendant the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts.
Read the full summary
FeoM the circuit court of Tallahatchie county. IToN. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Clement, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the telegraph company was defendant there. From a judgment for defendant the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts. The printed stipulations on the telegram, partly on its face and partly on its back, were not called to the attention either of the sender or of the sendee of the message. They did not agree to a contractual limitation because they made no contract embodying such a narrowing of the…
1Opinion of the CourtTerral, J.
The appellant cannot recover in this case. He does not bring himself -within the regulations -established by the telegraph company for the transaction of its business. Upon the blank, necessarily used in the transmission of the message, -and upon the one used also in the delivery of the message to the sendee, was a notice informing ’ them of the conditions upon which the telegram -was taken, for transmission and .delivery. It is there expressly stated that the company.’will not be liable *750for damages or statutory penalties in any ease where the claim is not presented in writing within sixty…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Southern Express Co. v. HunnicuttMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hartzog v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- Berry v. Lamar Life Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1932
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. BournMississippi Supreme Court · 1920