Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1903 |
| Citation | 43 S.E. 841,132 N.C. 317 |
| Parties | BRIGHT v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; McNeill, Judge.
Action by Lillian Bright against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for the defendant's negligent failure to deliver a telegram. The plaintiff alleged, and there was evidence tending to show, that on the 29th day of May, 1900, she moved with her husband and their children from Liberty, Randolph county, to Wilkesboro, and they were living in the latter place on Friday, the 24th day of August, 1900, when her husband suddenly fell dead upon the street, and that she immediately sent to her husband's uncle, Bob Cooper, who lived at Burlington, N. C., the following message: The message was filed with defendant's operator at 8 p. m. August 24 1900, and was received in Burlington within 30 minutes thereafter. It was written on one of the company's blanks, containing the usual stipulations. But it was agreed that no stipulation should be binding, except the following The toll for the message was prepaid. Bob Cooper was an uncle of plaintiff's husband, and "was devoted to him and her, and they had come to regard him much as a father." They had frequently visited his house since their marriage in 1892. The father of plaintiff's husband was killed in the war, and Mr. Cooper had raised her husband from his infancy and educated him, and he was the plaintiff's nearest living relative. There was evidence tending to show the close and intimate relationship between plaintiff and her husband's uncle, Mr. Cooper, and the parental affection which he entertained for plaintiff and her husband; the evidence tending strongly to show that he stood towards them in the place of a father. The plaintiff testified that her husband "looked upon him [Cooper] as a father, and, her own father being dead, she likewise was devoted to him, and regarded him as a father." Cooper never received the message, nor did he know of Bright's death until 10 days after it occurred, although he was at his home, in Burlington, during the entire day on which the message was sent, and received by the operator at Burlington. He lived near Lakeside Cotton Mill, which is less than a mile from defendant's office in Burlington, though outside the corporate limits, and he had lived there two years, and was well known by the leading citizens of Burlington, such as the postmaster, hotel keeper, druggist, lawyers, merchants, and policemen. There was a telephone line connecting the telegraph office and the Lakeside Cotton Mill, and Cooper was well known by the officers of the mill. When he heard of Bright's death he went to the telegraph office and demanded the message, but the manager was unable to find it, and, instead of producing the original, he gave him a copy. It further appeared that Cooper would have gone to Wilkesboro by the first train, which left at 2:30 a. m. Saturday, and accompanied the plaintiff to Liberty. There was also evidence on the part of the plaintiff that there were no free delivery limits in Burlington, and that messages had been delivered outside of Burlington, and the defendant had no rule requiring prepayment of charges for delivery beyond its free delivery limits, but collected the charges after delivery, and the charges were for the benefit of the messenger boys. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that Cooper was not well known in Burlington; that the office hours of the defendant company at Burlington were between 7 a. m. and 7 p. m., though an operator stayed in the office during the night, and he received this message about 8:30 p. m. August 24, 1900. It was delivered the same night to a messenger boy, who testified that he inquired of the chief of police and of several prominent persons, and at the post office and various other places, as to Cooper's residence, and could get no information. He then returned to the office, and sealed the message and hung it on a hook, where it was found the next morning by the manager; the night operator having left the office. The manager delivered it to another messenger boy, who attempted to deliver it the following day; and the manager thereupon sent a service message to the operator at Wilkesboro, asking for a better address, and the operator at Wilkesboro replied that Mrs. Bright had left Wilkesboro, and no better address could be secured. This service message was not sent until the afternoon of Saturday. The manager stated that he found the message Saturday morning, about 9:30 o'clock, on the hook, but that he did not know the contents of it. The plaintiff introduced in reply the postmaster, who stated that the messenger boy had made no inquiry of him about Cooper, but that he had frequently inquired of him about persons for whom he had messages; that he knew Cooper, and had known him before he moved to Burlington, and, if the messenger boy had inquired of him, he could have told him the whereabouts of Cooper. It further appeared that the plaintiff, Mrs. Bright, remained in Wilkesboro until 2 o'clock p. m. Saturday, August 25, 1900, and neither received a service message, nor heard anything whatever from the message sent to Cooper. With the dead body of her husband, and alone with her three children, she left Wilkesboro at 2 o'clock on the 25th of August, and had to stop over for the night in Greensboro, and renew her journey to Liberty the next day at 12 o'clock. There was no one to assist her or console her, or to look after her husband's remains, or to prepare for the interment. She brings this action for damages for the negligence of the defendant in failing to deliver the message so sent by her.
There were many prayers for instructions, and many errors assigned but we think the exceptions of the defendant may be fairly and fully stated as follows: (1) That the court admitted testimony to prove the relationship and state of feeling between Cooper, sendee, and Mr. and Mrs. Bright, and allowed it to be considered by the jury to establish the defendant's liability, and that the relationship between the plaintiff and Cooper was too remote to admit of a recovery of damages for mental anguish. (2) That the message did not sufficiently disclose its purpose, so as to charge the defendant in damages for failure to deliver it. (3) That Cooper lived outside the free delivery limits, and the defendant was not bound to know that fact, or to deliver the message without prepayment of the extra charge, as required by the rule of the company. (4) That as the message was not received at Burlington during office hours, the defendant was not bound to deliver it until Saturday at 7 o'clock a. m., the office hours being from 7 a. m. until 7 p. m., and that Cooper could not have reached Wilkesboro before the plaintiff left there if he had left Burlington after 7 a. m. on Saturday. (5) That the message does not show that the plaintiff desired Cooper to come to...
To continue reading
Request your trial