Wall v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Decision Date18 September 1912
Citation75 S.E. 690,92 S.C. 449
PartiesWALL v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Hampton County; Robt. E Copes, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Mamie Wall against the Western Union Telegraph Company. There was a judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

W. S Smith, of Hampton, and W. H. Townsend, of Columbia, for appellant. G. H. Fearons, of New York City, and E. F. Warren and George Warren, of Hampton, for respondent.

WOODS J.

The plaintiff, who lived in the country, two miles from Ridgeland, had instituted, or was about to institute, an action for divorce in Jessup, Ga. On October 15, 1909, her attorney, J. R. Thomas, delivered to the defendant telegraph company for transmission the following message: "Jessup Georgia, tenth-fifteenth, nineteen hundred and nine. Mrs Mamie Wall, Ridgeland, S.C. Papers will be ready to-morrow. Come No. 85 train. James R. Thomas." The telegram was not delivered until the plaintiff called for it on October 20th, in consequence of a letter received on the subject. The complaint alleges that the delay in delivery was due to the negligence, willfulness, and wantonness of the defendant, and that thereby the plaintiff "was prevented from keeping an important business engagement in Jessup, was inconvenienced, annoyed, subjected to expense, a trip from Ridgeland, S. C., to Jessup, Ga., which was fruitless, for the reason that the said message had not been delivered when called for at defendant's office, and otherwise damaged, to her injury in the sum of $1,999." The answer contains a general denial, and the special defenses that the plaintiff lived beyond the free delivery limits at Ridgeland, and the charge for delivery beyond the limits was not paid, and that the plaintiff was not known by the name of Mamie Wall, but by the name of Sallie Nettles, or Sallie Wall. At the conclusion of the entire evidence the circuit judge granted a nonsuit.

There was testimony on the part of the plaintiff tending to show that her real name, by which she was generally known, was Mamie Wall, and that she had signed receipts for express packages to the defendant's agent by that name; that on October 15th she was in Ridgeland and asked for a telegram that when she called again, and received the telegram from the agent, he found it in his waste basket; and that the divorce proceedings...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT