Forney v. Postal Tel. Cable Co

• Citation: 152 N.C. 494,67 S.E. 1011
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 04 May 1910
• Parties: FORNEY v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO.

67 S.E. 1011

152 N.C. 494

FORNEY

v.POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 1910.

1. Telegraphs and Telephones (§ 54^*)— Messages—Delay—Claims—Filing—Time.

A provision in a contract for the transmission of a telegram requiring that claims for delivery, etc., shall be presented within 60 days after the message is filed for transmission, is reasonable and valid.

[FA. Note.—For other cases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cent. Dig. §§ 39, 42; Dec. Dig. S 54.*]

2. Telegraphs and Telephones (§ 54*)—Delayed Message—Notice of Claim.

On the day a delayed death message addressed to plaintiff was delivered, his attorneys wrote the telegraph company a letter setting out the message, stating the facts, and that they filed claim for $2,000 damages for failure to deliver the message, and that, unless adjusted, suit would be entered at once. Held, that such letter was a sufficient filing of claim for damages within a contract provision requiring a claim to be filed within 60 days.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cent. Dig. § 42; Dec. Dig. § 54.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Webb, Judge.

Action by Dan Forney against the Postal Telegraph Cable Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 67 S. E. 1012.

Montgomery & Crowell, for appellant

Jerome, Maness & Sikes, for appellee.

WALKER, J. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for delay in delivering a telegram, which was sent from Charlotte, N. C, December 6, 1907, by Govan Reeves to Dan Forney, Concord, N. C. It was in the following words: "Jerry is dead. Tell Sye. Can you come at once? Answer." The message was not delivered until December 9, 1907. No question is presented in this case as to the negligence of the defendant, and the jury found that there had been negligence in delivering the telegram, and assessed the plaintiff's damages at $100. The only point raised in the case is whether the plaintiff presented his claim within 60 days after the message was filed, for transmission, as he was required to do by the terms and stipulations of the contract between him and the defendant, which stipulation we have held to be valid. Sherrill v. Tel. Co., 109 N. C. 527, 14 S. E. 94. It appeared on that day, December 9, 1907, the attorneys for Dan Forney addressed to the proper officer of the defendant company, a letter as follows: "Dear Sir: On the 6th instant the following message was sent to Dan Forney, and delivered on Dec. 9, at 9 o'clock a. m.: 'Charlotte, N. C. Dec. 6, '07. Dan Forney, Colored, Concord, N. C. Jerry is dead. Tell Sye. Can you come at once? Answer. Govan Reeves.' Dan Forney is known by everybody in Concord, N. C'.,. lives right here in town, with no earthly excuse why this message should not have been delivered at once, and we herewith file claim for $2,000.00 damage for failure to deliver the same. You will please take the matter up, and, if the same can be adjusted without suit, we shall be glad to do so, otherwise suit will be entered at once. Very truly yours, Adams, Armfield, Jerome & Maness."

This letter was received by the defendant, and its receipt acknowledged on December 13, 1907, which was eight days after the message was filed, and we are called upon to decide whether that letter was sufficient in form to apprise the defendant of the nature of the claim, in order that it might ascertain the facts. In Sherrill v. Tel. Co., supra, we held that the stipulation in regard to notifying the defendant of the plaintiff's claim did not restrict the...