In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington.

Action by Jennie Dawson against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

This action was brought by Mrs.-Jennie Lawson against the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant in failing to make prompt delivery of a telegraphic message to her at her residence in Seattle, Wash.

It is alleged in the complaint: That Mrs. Jennie Lawson was in January, 1908, proprietress of a certain hotel and lodging house in the city of Seattle, in the state of Washington; known as the St. Francis Hotel. That, being apprehensive that an indebtedness of about $500 which was to fall due about February 1, 1908, could not be met by her without assistance - from relatives or friends, she had offered her leasehold interest and her furniture in said hotel for sale for the sum of $10,000 which sum was more than $2,000 less than the reasonable value thereof. That, in .order to avoid the making of so large a sacrifice in the sale.of said leasehold interest and personal property, she applied to A. P. White, residing in Weston, in the state' of West Virginia, for a loan of $500 to enable her to meet said obligation and prevent said sacrifice. That in her letter to said White she requested him to telegraph to her whether or not he could and would loan her'that amount. That said White received her letter on Sunday, the -26th day of January, 1908, and on the next day he sent to her from said Weston a telegraphic message by the defendant’^ lines reading as follows: “Weston, West Virginia, January 27, 1908. Jennie Lawson, Care St. Francis Hotel, No. 816 Union Street, Seattle, Washington. Will mail you draft to-day. A. P. White.” That said telegraphic message wks delivered to defendant’s agent at Weston by one H. W. Lightbum, who at the time of so delivering the same told said agent it was very important that the telegram be delivered to Jennie Lawson that same day. That said telegram was received in the'defendant’s telegraph of-flee in Seattle at 35 minutes past 7 o’clock on the morning of the 27th day of January, 1908. That defendant did not deliver the same to the plaintiff on said day, nor at any time, nor at all until Saturday, the 15th day of February, 1908. That from and after the 26th day of January, 1908, the plaintiff by telephone daily called up the defendant’s office in said city of Seattle, giving her name and residence, and inquired if there was any telegram for her. That plaintiff told defendant’s Seattle office that she was expecting a telegram, that it was very important that it be delivered to her immediately upon its receipt by defendant. That the defendant’s said office invariably answered her that there was no telegram there for her. That between the 26th day of January, 1908, and the 1st of February, 1908, she frequently made said inquiry of said telegraphic office two or three times a day with the same result. That, failing to receive said telegram and assuming that said White was unable to make said loan to her, she was obliged to accept an offer of certain real property valued at §5,000, the assumption by the purchaser of the mortgage of personal property amounting to §2,650, and cash $850, making a total of §8,500 for her leasehold interest and furniture in the hotel. This offer she was obliged to accept and did accept on the 1st day of February, 1908. That, had she received said telegram seasonably, she would have been in position to save said leasehold interest and personal property, and would have refused said offer and would have awaited, without sacrifice, the arrival of said draft by mail had she been informed that it was on its way to her. That after she had accepted said offer and conveyed her said interest and property, she received by mail a bank draft from the said White for the sum of $500. That it came to her too late to be of any benefit to her. That by reason of the premises she had made a sacrifice of not less than $3,500, and that by reason of the gross negligence of the defendant the plaintiff had suffered damage in the sum of $3,500.

The defendant in its answer admits that on the 27th day of January, 1908, A. P. White at Weston, W. Va., delivered to the defendant for transmission over its lines to the plaintiff the telegram set forth in the complaint; but denies that its agent at Weston was told by any one'at-the time of the delivery of said message that it was very important, or important at all that the telegram be delivered to the plaintiff that same day;! admits the receipt of the telegram at defendant’s office in Seattle as alleged in the complaint; admits that defendant did not deliver the contents of the telegram to the plaintiff on- said day nor at any time prior to the 7th day of February, 1908, and did not deliver the written message itself until February 15, 1908; denies knowledge as to the application to A. P. White for a loan, or the reason for such an application,' or the purpose of the loan, or the contents of the letter, or when the said White received such a letter; denies that the plaintiff sustained the damages alleged in the complaint. But the answer does not deny the allegations of the complaint that from and after January 26, 1908, plaintiff by telephone daily called up the defendant’s office-at Seattle, gave her name and residence, and inquired if there was any telegram for her, stating that she was expecting a telegram; that it was very important-that it be delivered to her Immediately upon its receipt by the defendant; that defendant’s said office invariably answered her that there was no telegram there for her; that between January 26, 1908, and February 1, 1908, she frequently made said inquiry at said telegraph office — two or three times a day —with the same result.

Upon the issue thus presented the case was tried before the court and jury.

The plaintiff testified that she was the proprietress of the Hotel St. Francis, 816 Union street, Seattle. That she wrote a letter to Mr. A. P. White, Weston, W. Va., on January 19, 1908, which she identified and it was introduced in evidence. In this letter to White she States her financial condition and requests a loan of $500, which she says if he can make her she must know at once. “Please wire me,” she says, “at once what I can depend upon. Send me wire message at my expense.” It appears from the deposition of Mr. White that this letter was received by him on Saturday night, January 25, 1908; that on Sunday, January 26th, he answered the letter, stating that on the following day he would send her the money and would wire her in the morning. In this letter he inclosed a draft in,favor of the plaintiff for §500. This letter and draft were received by the plaintiff on the afternoon of January ⅝1, 1908. In the deposition off Mr. White he says he was . sick when he received the letter from plaintiff, and on Monday morning he called on H. W. Lightburn to'procure the draft for him, and to. telegraph plaintiff that the money was coming. From the deposition- of H. W. Lightburn, it appears that he obtained the draft from the bank when the bank opened about ⅜ o’clock on the morning of January 27, 1908, inclosed it in an envelope with Mr. White’s letter addressed to plaintiff. He also wrote a telegram and delivered it to defendant’s operator at Weston, W. Va., addressed and to be transmitted to plaintiff at Seattle. This telegram was. delivered to the operator at Weston at about 8 o’clock in the morning. The witness told the operator “that it was an important message and to get it through as quick as possible.” The message was-as follows: “Weston, West-Virginia, January 27, 1908. Jennie Lawson, Care St. Francis Hotel, No. 816 Union Street, Seattle, Washington. Will mail you draft to-day. A. P. White.”

It appears from the testimony introduced on behalf of the defendant that this telegram was-received at Seattle at 7:35 on the morning of January 27, 1908. The address on the message as received Was “Jennie- Lawson, care St. Francis Hotel, 816 Union Street, Seattle,” but “816 Union Street" was left off. the message when it was written, out and placed in the envelope for delivery by the clerk in the telegraph office whose business it was to address the envelope. He says, he took it for granted that it was the St. Francis Hotel at Ninth and Madison streets. The message was delivered at the latter address at eight minutes past 8, and was receipted for by one W. O. Johnson. Plaintiff testified that she received the telegram on February 15, 1908; that on the morning of January 27th she knew that they (White) had got her letter and would certainly reply at once; that about 10 o’clock on that morning she called up the telegraph office and inquired if there was a message for her. They said no message had been received, and from that time on frequently, time and again, night and day, she called up the telegraph office. She thought perhaps they might misunderstand the name. She told them to look and see if there was any message at all for any Lawson — if they had received any Lawson message whatever; it was a matter of vital Importance to her; it meant something to her. This she did repeatedly. The answer was there was no message whatever for Lawson. Each time they said there- was no message for her. She mentioned the street and number, there being some confusion about the other St. Francis. She mentioned the street each time, and her name and everything as clear as possible. She finally received the message on February 15, 1908. The witness also testified concerning the damages she had sustained by reason of the failure of the defendant to promptly deliver the telegram from White.

The defendant claimed that it appeared from the amended complaint that plaintiff was not entitled to more that nominal damages, and offered to allow such a judgment to. be entered for the plaintiff. . At the close of the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant also moved the court to withdraw the case from the jury and enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for nominal damages. The court denied the motion, and the jury rendered a verdict for $500.

The case comes here on writ of error from the judgment entered upon the verdict.