Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
When a party in one controversy which has been decided by a court presents pleadings and testimonies that present the same issue and do not provide additional reasons in support of its contentions in another controversy pending before the same court, the court may just adopt its reasonings in the former case and apply it wholly to the latter case.
Defendant in error, Hill, sued the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover damages for the failure to deliver to him, with proper diligence, a telegram sent by one Earl at Cameron, to plaintiff at Wichita Falls, advising the latter of the death of his mother and requesting him to wire if he was coming. It is alleged that the telegram was received by Western Union’s agent at Wichita Falls at 11:57 a. m. on the date it was sent, and that the company negligently failed to deliver it until about 9:00 p. m. on that date, and because of such negligence, Hill was unable to attend the funeral of his mother. He prayed for $ 2,000 damages. Western Union answered by general demurrer and general denial, and specifically denied its negligence and contribution to the delay. A trial to a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of Hill Western Union Tel. Co. in the sum of $ 1,150.
Should Western Union’s appeal be granted?
The instant appeal rested upon four propositions, which were identical with the propositions presented by Western Union in Western Union Telegraph Co.v.Alred, 4.S.W.2d 666, case decided by the same court. The issues presented by the pleadings and upon which testimony was offered furnish no additional reasons in support of the contentions here than were presented in the Alred Case. Counsel for appellant, in oral argument, stated that the questions of law in the two cases were, for all practical purposes, identical, except that the amount of the judgment in this case was much larger than in the Alred Case. Thus, the court merely adopted its reasoning in the Alred case and overruled the appeal herein.