Cranford Et Nx v. Western Union Tel. Co

• Decision Date: 18 April 1905
• Citation: 50 S.E. 585,138 N.C. 162
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: CRANFORD et nx. v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

138 N.C. 162

50 S.E. 585

CRANFORD et nx.

v.WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 18, 1905.

TELEGRAPHS—DEATH MESSAGE—DELAY IN DELIVERY—MENTAL ANGUISH—LIABILITY.

1. Delay in the delivery of a message addressed to a married man, disclosing no interest of his wife in the subject-matter, does not render the telegraph company liable for damages for mental anguish of the wife because of her inability to attend the burial of a grandchild whose death the message announced, in the absence of evidence that the message was intended for the wife's benefit.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 45, Cent. Dig. Telegraphs and Telephones, § 37.]

2. Where a message was received by the sendee announcing the death of his grandchild in time for him to take the train to attend the burial, the fact that his wife was prevented from taking the train because of her inability to place her children in the care of a neighbor after the receipt of the message by her husband would not render the telegraph company liable for mental anguish resulting from her failure to attend the burial.

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County, Bryan, Judge.

Action by N. P. Cranford and wife against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Emery E. Raper, for appellants.

Walser& Walser, Manly & Hendren, and F. H. Busbee & Son, for appellee.

WALKER, J. Plaintiffs, N. P. Cranford and his wife, M. C. Cranford, brought this action to recover damages for mental anguish of the feme plaintiff, which they allege was caused by the negligence of the defendant in the transmission and delivery of a telegram In the following words: "China Grove, June 18th 1904. N. P. Cranford, Lexington, N. C. May died today. Be buried tomorrow. A. L. Cranford." A. L. Cranford is the son of the plaintiffs, and May, who is mentioned in the telegram, was the child of Mrs. Ludwick, who is the sister of A. L. Cranford and the daughter of the plaintiffs. Tbe message was filed with the operator of the defendant at China Grove between 7 and 8 o'clock p. m., and was delivered to N. P. Cranford at 6 o'clock the next morning. Plaintiffs live about.one-half of a mile from the depot at Lexington. N. P. Cranford took the train that morning, and arrived in time for the funeral, though he was not met at Glass, the nearest station on the defendant's line, and had to walk to the place of burial. Mrs. Cranford did not go. She testified that she bad several children, one of whom was afflicted, and that she could not get ready in time to take the train, as she was unable to place her children in the care of any of her neighbors. Plaintiffs' counsel did not claim any right to damages for N. P. Cranford, but insisted that Mrs. Cranford was entitled to recover any dam ages she had suffered by reason of the defendant's negligent delay in sending and delivering the message. The court, on motion of the defendant's counsel, "directed judgment of nonsuit to be entered. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

The face of the message before us did not inform the defendant that it was intended for the benefit of the feme plaintiff, or that she had any interest in its prompt transmission and delivery. It does not appear that the company was informed, either in terms or by the tenor of the message, that a failure to transmit and deliver it with promptness would result in damage to the feme plaintiff. So far as the message discloses, it was sent solely for the benefit of N. P. Cranford. The mere fact that he happened to be her husband does not give her any right to damages for the defendant's default to which she would not otherwise be entitled. We do not hold that, in order to recover damages for a breach of duty by the defendant in transmitting and delivering a telegram, it is necessary the interest of the plaintiff in the message should appear on its face, because it is quite sufficient...