Lefler v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1902
• Citation: 42 S.E. 819,131 N.C. 355
• Parties: LEFLER et al. v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

42 S.E. 819

131 N.C. 355

LEFLER et al. v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 25, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Rowan county; Shaw, Judge.

Action by Price Lefler and another against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Armfield & Turner, F. H. Busbee, and Geo. H. Fearons, for appellant.

Overman & Gregory and Long & Nicholson, for appellees.

FURCHES C.J.

Action for damages for negligence in delivering a message received at Mooresville, Iredell county, to be delivered at Salisbury Rowan county. The message was as follows: "To Price Lefler, Care So. Railway Co., Salisbury, N. C.: Mother dying. Come at once. D. M. Howard." This message was received by defendant company at 8:20 at Mooresville, and received at Charlotte at 10:55, and at Salisbury at 11:15. The evidence tended to show that the agent at Mooresville endeavored to send the message to Charlotte at once, but the agent at Charlotte did not answer his calls, and he could not do so sooner than he did. Upon the message reaching Salisbury, it was at once delivered to Leroy Shuping, a messenger boy 16 years old, and who had lived at Salisbury all his life. He did not know Price Lefler, nor did he know where he lived nor whether in Salisbury or not; and it would seem, from the evidence, that he made extensive search and inquiry for Lefler, the sendee, but was unable to find him. And this being so, at 11:15 o'clock he delivered the message to Johnson, the ticket agent of the Southern Railway at Salisbury. This delivery to Johnson was in time for the plaintiffs to have gone to Mrs. Howard's before her funeral, if the delivery had been made to Price Lefler in person.

The discussion of this case has assumed a wide range, as the discussion of such cases usually does. But not to consider what is not necessary for a decision of the case, the discussion is very much limited. The message was delivered to Johnson in proper time, and eliminates the discussion of any negligence there may have been in sending the message, as no negligence can avail the plaintiffs that did not cause the injury. It also eliminates a discussion as to whether the messenger boy, Shuping, used due diligence in trying to find Price Lefler or not, who was not in town at that time. The court properly instructed the jury that Johnson was a proper agent of the Southern Railway Company, to whom a delivery of the message might be made, and a delivery to him was a delivery to the Southern Railway Company, and, as the message was directed to Price Lefler in care of the Southern Railway Company, the said company was made his agent, and a delivery to the agent discharged the defendant from further liability on account of the message. Telegraph Co. v. Houghton (Tex. Sup.) 17 S.W. 846, 15 L. R. A. 129, 27 Am. St Rep. 918; ...