Jolley v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1933
• Docket Number: 515.
• Citation: 167 S.E. 575,204 N.C. 136
• Parties: JOLLEY v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

167 S.E. 575

204 N.C. 136

JOLLEY v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

No. 515.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 8, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Cleveland County; Hill, Special Judge.

Action by Evelyn Jolley, by her next friend Irwin Jolley, against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

No error.

In minor's action against telegraph company for negligent failure to deliver telegram, evidence held to warrant finding that plaintiff, living with and supported by father, was impliedly emancipated, entitling minor to recover for earnings lost.

Doctrine of implied emancipation of minor obtains in North Carolina.

The plaintiff is a young woman, living at Mooresboro, N. C., and graduated at Meredith College in 1929. During her college course she did special work in order to prepare for teaching English and French. She had also taken a correspondence course in the University of North Carolina in order to qualify for a grade A certificate. W. A. Redfern, on August 27, 1930, delivered a telegram to the defendant, Western Union, at Chapel Hill, which is substantially as follows "Miss Evelyn Jolley, Mooresboro, North Carolina. Have been elected to teach English, French, Dramatics, Manteo High School. Wire answer. W. A. Redfern." This telegram was received by Miss Jolley by mail between 10 and 10:30 o'clock on August 28, 1930. After consulting with her father, and at about 12 o'clock on said date, she went to the agent of the defendant and delivered for transmission the following message: "W. A. Redfern, Chapel Hill, N.C Accept English, French, Manteo High School. Evelyn Jolley." Redfern testified that he left a forwarding address with the agent of the defendant at Chapel Hill, and that he inquired at the office in Chapel Hill if there was any reply to his telegram, and that he left Chapel Hill on August 28 about 8 o'clock. The forwarding address given was Elizabeth City. Upon arriving at Elizabeth City, he made inquiry with regard to a reply from the plaintiff to his message.

As the plaintiff did not hear from Mr. Redfern, she wrote a letter on September 6, inquiring when the school at Manteo would open. On September 8 Redfern wrote a letter to the plaintiff stating: "In reply to your letter of September 6, I must state that I have employed another for the position since I did not receive an answer to my wire. I waited from August 27th until September 4th for a reply and did not receive one, so employed another. In fact, your letter tonight was the first I had heard from you."

The evidence tended to show that the salary for the holders of a grade A certificate under the state schedule was $100 per month. Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that she purchased clothing and made preparation to assume her duties at Manteo, and that, after she was informed by Redfern that her telegram of acceptance had never been delivered, and that another teacher had been employed, she made diligent effort to procure other employment, but was unable to do so. The school term at Manteo was eight months, and the plaintiff sued for $900, covering the expected salary and $100 for purchases which she had made or money spent in preparing to teach in Manteo. Redfern testified that he had authority to employ teachers for the Manteo High School, and that he had conferred with the county superintendent at Chapel Hill before offering the position to Miss Jolley. He further testified that there were three trustees of Manteo High School, and that the county superintendent was his superior officer. "He had the right to approve or reject my employments. They were submitted to him before they were made. *** Even after I made an appointment the superintendent had a right to reject it."

The cause was submitted to the jury upon the following issues:

(1) "Did the defendant negligently fail to transmit and deliver the telegram as alleged in the complaint?"

(2) "If so, was plaintiff injured thereby?"

(3) "What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?"

The foregoing issues were answered in favor of the plaintiff, and there was an award of $600 damages. From judgment upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Francis R. Stark, of New York City, and Alfred S. Barnard, of Asheville, for appellant.

B. T. Falls, of Shelby, for appellee.

BROGDEN J.

Two questions of law arise upon the record: (1) Can an unemancipated minor, living with and being supported by her father, recover for earnings lost by the failure to promptly deliver a telegram? (2) Was the plaintiff entitled to recover more than nominal damages?

The plaintiff was a graduate of Meredith College, and had prepared herself to teach English and French in the schools of North Carolina. There was no evidence of express emancipation, but evidence of implied emancipation sufficient to support the verdict was introduced at the trial. The doctrine of implied emancipation is fully recognized in this state. Thus, in Ingram v.

Southern R. Co., 152 N.C. 762, 67 S.E. 926, the court said: "It is well settled that if a contract of employment is made by a minor and approved and confirmed by his father, and under such contract the son is to receive the wages earned by him the father by...