Duncan v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

• Decision Date: 26 October 1908
• Docket Number: 13,018
• Citation: 93 Miss. 500,47 So. 552
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BENJAMIN C. DUNCAN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY

47 So. 552

93 Miss. 500

BENJAMIN C. DUNCAN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY

No. 13,018

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 26, 1908

FROM the circuit court of Grenade county, HON. J. T. DUNN, Judge.

Duncan appellant and cross-appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the telegraph company, appellee and cross-appellants was defendant there. From a judgment for a small sum in plaintiff's favor he appealed to the supreme court and the defendant prosecuted a cross-appeal.

Duncan appellant, had a son seventeen years old attending school in Virginia. Not having heard from him in some time, and being apprehensive that he might be ill, appellant, Duncan, sent a telegram to the superintendent of the school, inquiring about the boy's health. The superintendent of the school replied as follows: "Son very well." The message delivered to appellant read: "Son very ill." Appellant made effort to get the telegram confirmed, but failing, tried the long-distance telephone, but was unable to communicate with the superintendent of the school. Appellant and his wife then took the first train for Virginia, thinking their son was dangerously ill and their presence necessary. While en route they were advised of the mistake in the transmission of the message and at once returned to their home in Grenada, Miss. Appellant brought suit for damages, both for the expense he had needlessly incurred and for mental agony suffered. The court below declined to admit his testimony of mental suffering, and refused an instruction that mental suffering was an element of damage. Appellant recovered a judgment for the actual expense to which he had been subjected in taking the unnecessary trip.

Affirmed.

Wm. C. McLean, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Counsel for appellant and cross-appellee argued the case elaborately and cited the following authorities: Jones on Telegraph and Telephone Companies, § 539 et seq.; Green v. Telegraph Co., 136 N.C. 489, 49 S.C. 165, 67 L. R. A. 985, 103 Am. St. Rep. 955 et seq., and notes; Barnes v. W. U. T. Co., 27 Nev. 438, 76 P. 931, 65 L. R. A. 666, 103 Am. St. Rep. 776 et. seq.; W. U. T. Co. v. Swearingin, 97 Tex. 293, 78 S.W. 491, 104 Am. St. Rep. 879; Willis v. W. U. T. Co., 69 S.C. 531, 48 S.E. 538, 104 Am. St. Rep. 828; Wadsworth v. W. U. T. Co., 86 Tenn. 695, 8 S.W. 574, 6 Am. St. Rep. 864; W. U. T. Co. v. Mellon, 96 Tenn. 66, 33 S.W. 725; Gray v. W. U. T. Co., 108 Tenn. 39, 64 S.W. 1063, 56 L. R. A. 301, 91 Am. St. Rep. 706; Hendricks v. W. U. T. Co. , 126 N.C. 304, 35 S.E. 543, 78 Am. St. Rep. 658; Graham v. W. U. T. Co., 109 Ia. 1071, 34 So. 92; Chapman v. W. U. T. Co., 90 Ky. 265, 13 S.W. 880; W. U. T. Co. v. Van Cleave, 107 Ky. 464, 54 S.W. 827, 92 Am. St. Rep. 366; W. U. T. Co. v. Fisher, 107 Ky. 513, 54 S.W. 830; Reese v. W. U. T. Co., 123 Ind. 294, 24 N.E. 163, 7 L. R. A. 583; Mentzer v. W. U. T. Co., 93 Iowa 752, 62 N.W. 1, 28 L. R. A. 72, 57 Am. St Rep. 294; Cowan v. W. U. T. Co., 122 Iowa 379, 98 N.W. 281, 64 L. R. A. 545, 101 Am. St. Rep. 268; W. U. T. Co. v. Cooper, 71 Tex. 507, 9 S.W. 598, 1 L. R. A. 728, 10 Am. St. Rep. 772; Thomas v. W. U. T. Co., 120 Ky. 194, 85 S.W. 760; W. U. T. Co. v. Caldwell, 102 S.W. 840, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 497, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 749; W. U. T. Co. v. Henderson, 89 Ala. 510, 7 So. 419, 18 Am. St. Rep. 148; W. U. T. Co. v. Aures, 131 Ala. 391, 31 So. 78, 90 Am. St. Rep. 92; T. Co. v. Wilson, 93 Ala. 32, 9 So. 414, 30 Am. St. Rep. 23; Same v. Krichbaum, 132 Ala. 535, 31 So. 607; So Relic v. Telegraph Co., 55 Tex. 308, 40 Am. Rep. 805; Gulf R. Co. v. Levy, 59 Tex. 542, 46 Am. Rep. 269; Id., 59 Tex. 567, 46 Am. Rep. 278; Stuart v. Telegraph Co., 66 Tex. 580, 18 S.W. 351, 59 Am. Rep. 623; Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, § 605; Gray on Communications by Telegraph, § 65; Wharton on Negligence, § 758; 3 Sutherland on Damages, 304; 2 Thompson on Negligence, 847.

Harris, Powell, & Willing and Geo. H. Fearons, for appellee and cross-appellant.

Counsel for appellee and cross-appellant argued the case fully citing the following cases: Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rogers, 68 Miss. 748, 9 So. 823, 13 L. R. A. 859, 24 Am. St. Rep. 300; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ferguson, 157 Ind. 64, 60 N.E. 674, 1080, 54 L. R. A. 846; Chapman v. Telegraph Co., 88 Ga. 763, 15 S.E. 901, 17 L. R. A. 430, 30 Am. St. Rep. 183; Connell v. Telegraph Co., 116 Mo. 34, 22 S.W. 345, 20 L. R. A. 172, 38 Am. St. Rep. 575; Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 447, 14 So. 148, 21 L. R. A. 810; Summerfield v. Western Union Tel. Co., 87 Wis. 1, 57 N.W. 973, 41 Am. St. Rep. 17; Francis v. Telegraph Co., 58 Minn. 252, 59 N.W. 1078, 25 L. R. A. 406, 49 Am. St. Rep. 507; Butner v. Telegraph Co., 2 Okl. 234, 37 P. 1087; Morton v. Western Union Tel. Co., 53 Ohio St. 431, 41 N.E. 689, 32 L. R. A. 735, 53 Am. St. Rep. 648; Telegraph Co. v. Haltom, 71 Ill.App. 63; Curtin v. Western Union Tel. Co., 13 A.D. 253, 42 N.Y.S. 1109; Peay v. Western Union Tel. Co., 64 Ark. 538, 43 S.W. 965, 39 L. R. A. 463; Davis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 46 W.Va. 48, 32 S.E. 1026; Lewis v. Telegraph Company, 57 S.C. 325, 35 S.E. 556; Connelly v. Western U. Tel. Co., 100 Va. 51, 40 S.E. 618, 56 L. R. A. 663, 93 Am. St. Rep. 919; Huston v. Freemansburg, 212 Pa. 548, 61 A. 1022, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49; Russell v. Telegraph Co., 3 Dak. 315, 19 N.W. 408; West v. Telegraph Co., 39 Kan. 93, 17 P. 807 7 Am. St. Rep. 530; Cocke v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 84 Miss. 380, 36 So. 392; Telephone Co. v. Baker, 85 Miss. 486, 37 So. 1012; Telephone Co. v. Allen, 89 Miss. 832, 42 So. 666; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Clifton, 68 Miss. 307, 8 So. 746; Jacobs v. Postal Telegraph Co., 76 Miss. 278, 24 So. 535; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Palotta, 81 Miss. 216, 32 So. 310; Telegraph Co. v. Pearce, 82 Miss. 487, 34 So. 152; Johnson v. Telegraph Co., 79 Miss. 58, 29 So. 787, 89 Am. St. Rep. 584; Hilley v. Telegraph Co., 85 Miss. 67, 37 So. 556.

OPINION

MAYES, J.

We have carefully examined this case and all the authorities cited by counsel on either side. We find no error either on direct appeal or cross-appeal, and would affirm the case without written opinion, were it not for the fact that the main object of the direct appeal is to have us overrule the case of Telegraph Company v. Rogers, 68 Miss. 748, 9 So. 823, 13 L. R. A. 859, 24 Am. St. Rep. 300, wherein it is held that no damage can be re covered on account of mental pain and anguish. The Rogers case was decided in 1891, and has stood as the law of this state for seventeen years. Since it was decided we have had many sessions of the legislature without any change being made in the law, and we shall not now disturb the decision.

On the cross-appeal we do not think the court erred in any particular. The authorities cited by the cross-appellant are readily distinguished in their facts from the case now on trial. The case of Hilley v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 85 Miss. 67, 37 So. 556, comes nearer this case on its facts, than any other case cited on cross-appeal; but the Hilley case is easily distinguished. In the Hilley case, supra, the facts showed that Hilley was at Meridian, Miss., and having a sick child at his home in Sugar Valley, Ga., wired to his wife there the following telegram: "Wire me, McComb City, Miss how sick are." On receipt of the message, Mrs. Hilley wired to McComb City, as requested: "Sick are no better." This message was sent to McComb City, but was not delivered to Hilley, because he had been ordered to go to Vicksburg, and did not go to McComb City. When Hilley learned of this change in his plans, he wired the telegraph office in McComb City the following message: "Forward all telegrams for me to Vicksburg, Miss." Hilley never received the message sent...