Providence Washington Insurance v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
Action ex contractu. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John H. Hume, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Smith
The record presents no answer to the negligence averred and proved by the plaintiff. Accordingly defendant’s counsel, at the outset of their argument, say: ‘■For the purpose of this argument it will be conceded that appellant did not use reasonable diligence in the transmission and delivery of the telegram in question, and that it thereby failed to fulfill its contract.”
It is contended, however, that such failure did not directly and proximately cause the damage for which plaintiff is seeking to recover in this action, and that consequently the defendant is not liable therefor. It is argued…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. ReevesSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Hoadley v. Northern Transportation Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Wald v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Wolf v. American Express Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. LathropIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bell v. Union Pacific RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1913