MacKay Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Martin

DEYY, J. (after stating tbe facts as above). A peremptory instruction asked by tbe appellant was refused by tbe court, and error is predicated upon tbe ruling of tbe court. It is believed there was error in refusing tbe requested instruction, for, according to tbe evidence, tbe death message was an interstate message sent from Rosedale, Miss., to Paris, Tex., and as such was interstate commerce. And tbe laws of Mississippi where tbe message originated do not allow, according to tbe admitted facts, a recovery of damages for mental anguish alone as relied on in this pase. Communication by telegraph is commerce, and messages passing from one state to another constitute such, commerce. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. 1126, 30 L. Ed. 1187. And as there was to be a continuous .transmission of tbe message in evidence from Rosedale, Miss., to Paris, Tex., tbe message was subject-matter of interstate commerce when tbe Mackay Company, as one of tbe agencies, undertook to further its transmission to tbe point of destination. Houston Navigation Co. v. Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713, 59 Am. St Rep. 17. Since tbe message is interstate, and tbe Mackay Company is merely one of tbe agencies emplpyed in tbe furthering of tbe prompt transmission of tbe message, tbe liability of tbe Mackay *135 Company would be determined, it is thought, by the law of the state where the original contract was -made. In this state the question is settled that the contract is controlled by the laws of the state where it is made. Tel. Co. v. Douglass, 104 Tex. 66, 133 S. W. 877; Tel. Co. v. Bailey, 184 S. W. 519; Id., 108 Tex. 427, 196 S. W. 516. The judgment is reversed, and a judgment is here rendered in favor of the appellant. Footnotes [1] <&^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes