Legal Opinion
Davenport v. Western Union Tel. Co.
Montana Supreme Court
Decided March 14, 1932No. 6,905PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Before damages may be recovered, such damages must be the natural and proximate consequences of the act complained of. The amended complaint herein falls far short of any allegations showing that any damage to plaintiff was the natural and proximate result of any act of defendant. It deals only with allegations concerning damages which are remote and speculative. It does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Bashinsky v. Western Union Tel. Co.,1 Ga. App. 761, 58 S.E. 91; Clio Gin Co. v. Western Union Tel.Co., 82 S.C. 405, 64 S.E. 426; Bird v. Western Union Tel.Co., 76…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Leonard v. New York, Albany & Buffalo Electro Magnetic Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Mize v. Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1909
- Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Chapman v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. Homestake Exploration Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1934
- Chancellor v. Hines Motor Supply Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1937