Havener v. Western Union Tel. Co

• Decision Date: 23 December 1895
• Citation: 117 N.C. 540,23 S.E. 457
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HAVENER v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

23 S.E. 457

117 N.C. 540

HAVENER

v.WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 23, 1895.

Telegraph Companies—Delay in Delivering Message—Damages.

In an action for delay in delivering a telegram to plaintiff that his mother was not expected to live, and to come at once, plaintiff alleged "that, by reason of said gross negligence and willful conduct of the defendant in the failure to deliver the message within said reasonable time, this plaintiff has suffered great damage, both in body and mind, to wit, the sum of $2,000." The evidence was conflicting as to whether plaintiff could have arrived at his mother's home before her death, had the message been promptly delivered, but the jury found that plaintiff was injured by defendant's negligence. Held, that the pleading was sufficiently broad to cover any damages, and the court properly refused to charge that in no event could plaintiff recover more than nominal damages.

Appeal from superior court, Buncombe county; Shuford, Judge.

Action by R. A. Havener against the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover damages for failure to deliver a message within a reasonable time. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Moore & Moore and P. A. Sondley, for plaintiff.

Jones & Tillett and Strong & Strong, for defendant.

FAIRCLOTH, C. J. "Lincolnton, N. C. Oct. 18, 1892. R. A. Havener, Asheville, N. C: Your mother not expected to live. Come at once. Answer. [Signed] A. B. Havener." This is an action of damages for failure to deliver the above message within a reasonable time. The usual route was by railroad from Asheville to Newton, and then into the country near Lincolnton. It was shown that the message was not delivered until 3 o'clock on same day, four or five hours after it was received at Asheville, where the sendee lived, and also that the last train on that day left the latter place at 2:30 p. m., and that there was no other train until 9 a. m. next day. Newton is more than 100 miles from Asheville. The defendant alleged that he made every reasonable effort to find the sendee and deliver the message. His honor instructed the jury "that, if they shall find that the defendant, after receiving the message, placed it in the hands of a carrier, and the carrier called and inquired of the hotels and of citizens as to the place of Havener's business or his whereabouts, and did not consume unreasonable time in so doing, before asking a better address, and, after such inquiry, failed to find him or his place of business in time for the plaintiff to take the 2:30 train for Newton, the defendant exercised reasonable diligence in delivering the message, and the failure to find the plaintiff or his place of business in time for the train was not negligence, and the plaintiff cannot recover." This was a proper charge, and was as much of the defendant's request as it was entitled...