79 So. 1 | Miss. | 1918
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellee instituted this suit in the court below to recover of appellant damages alleged to have been sustained by Mm because of the breach by appellant of an alleged agreement to deliver to him at Pachuta, Miss., a ticket entitling him to transportation over its road therefrom to Hattiesburg.
John Winston, who testified in behalf of appellant, stated that he delivered to appellant’s agent at Hattiesburg the price of two tickets from Pachuta to Hattiesburg, and requested him to have appellant’s agent at Pachuta to deliver one of the tickets to appellee and one to Mamie Winston when called for, and that appellant’s agent agreed so to do.
According to the evidence for 'appellee, when he and Mamie called upon appellant’s agent at Pachuta for
According to the evidence for appellant, the request made of its agent at Hattiesburg by John Winston was for the delivery to Mamie at Pachuta of two tickets from there to Hattiesburg; that when she called therefor both tickets were tendered to her, and she was asked if the other ticket was not for appellee, but stated she did not know, that “she only wanted one ticket for herself.”
The contract entered into between appellant’s agent at Hattiesburg and John Winston was in writing, signed by both the agent and Winston, and while John admitted signing the contract, he claimed not to have read it. According to the written contract appellant’s agreement was to deliver the two tickets to Mamie.
The inconvenience suffered by appellee for which he claims compensation, because of his failure to obtain the ticket when he first called for it, is stated in his counsel’s brief as follows:
“The appellee was crippled and unable to go about much, so he went out in search of a place of repose, when finally he was placed in a hovel overrun with fleas and chinches, and there during the balance of the night was forced to submit to tortures inflicted upon him by such remorseless enemies.”
Appellee can recover, if at all, only on the theory that appellant violated a contract entered into by it, for appellee’s benefit, with John Winston to deliver to
Reversed, and judgment here for appellant.
Reversed.