#### Martin E. Troutman, Defendant in Error, v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,560.

(Hot to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas F. Scully, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Reversed.

Opinion filed May 25, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Martin E. Troutman against Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, a corporation, to recover dam*246ages sustained by plaintiff resulting from the failure of defendant to deliver to the addressees a telegram given to it to be transmitted. Upon trial by the court, plaintiff recovered a judgment for $101.10, which was for railroad fare from Meadville, Pennsylvania to Chicago and return amounting to $21.10, and $80 for loss of profits and commissions while absent from Meadville. To reverse the judgment, defendant brings error.

Plaintiff was an insurance solicitor and was employed on a commission basis by the Traveler’s Insurance Company. He had in his employ George A. Wilson and Deaton J. Brooks, who were engaged by him as solicitors of insurance, the plaintiff receiving commissions on all policies written by himself and his employes. Wilson and Brooks had become dissatisfied and were contemplating a change of employment. At this time George S. Penfield, the manager of the company and plaintiff’s official superior, was in Hartford, Connecticut, while plaintiff was in Meadville. Plaintiff had informed Penfield that Wilson and Brooks wanted a larger share of commissions, and Penfield wired plaintiff as follows:

“Wire Brooks “and Wilson not to make a change until after hearing from me.”

Pursuant to this instruction plaintiff sent the following telegram to Chicago through the defendant:

“Meadville, Pa., Jan. 20, 1913.

To Wilson and Brooks

306 Ins. Exchange Chicago, HI.

Have wire from Panfield. Make no arrangements for change until you hear from him.

Troutman.”

This message was received in the Chicago office of the defendant and given to a messenger boy to deliver, but for some reason, which is not exactly clear, Messrs. Wilson and Brooks did not receive it. These men left the employ of the Traveler’s Insurance Company, and this fact becoming known to plaintiff at Meadville he came to Chicago. It does not appear just *247why he came to Chicago or what he did after his arrival. As indicated above, he was allowed as damages his railroad fare for this trip and his loss of profits caused by his absence from Meadville.

Abstract of the Decision.

Telegraphs and telephones, § 37*—when recovery for failure to deliver telegram not warranted by the evidence. In an action against a telegraph company to recover damages sustained hy plaintiff by reason of the failure of defendant to deliver to addressees a telegram given to it to be transmitted, a judgment in favor of plaintiff for certain railroad fare and for loss of profits and commissions held not warranted by the evidence, there being no evidence to show that the failure to deliver the telegram had any hearing on the actions of the addressees or made the railroad trip by plaintiff necessary.

Jacob E. Dittus, for plaintiff in error.

Albert B. George, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice.McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.