Laudie Et Ux v. Western Union Tel. Co

• Decision Date: 24 April 1900
• Parties: LAUDIE et ux. v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

35 S.E. 810

126 N.C. 431

LAUDIE et ux.

v.WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 24, 1900.

APPEAL AND ERROR—REVIEW—TELEGRAPH COMPANIES—FAILURE TO DELIVER MESSAGES.

1. A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be reversed.

2. Damages can be recovered for an injury resulting from the negligent assurance by a telegraph company that a telegram had been delivered by them, which was false in fact, although no damages can be recovered for the failure to deliver in the particular instance.

Appeal from superior court, Mecklenburg county; Allen, Judge.

Action by C. L. Laudie and Margaret E. Laudie against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jones & Tillett, for appellant.

Osborne, Maxwell & Keerans, for appellees.

DOUGLAS, J. This case was here before, being reported in 124 N. C. 528, 32 S. E. 8S6, and being officially erroneously printed "Lan-die." Nearly all the material facts were then set out, and need not be fully repeated. In the case as now before us, it appears that the telegraph wires did not go beyond Cheraw, but that from Cheraw to Chesterfield there was a telephone wire, which was used for the transmission of telegrams. The defendant included in its charges, which were prepaid by the husband of the plaintiff, the extra amount usually charged by the telephone company. This evidence is material only as tending to show that the defendant undertook to transmit the message to Chesterfield by telephone. It appears that at that time the telephone wire was down, and that therefore the telegram could not be forwarded. It is conceded that the defendant was not guilty of negligence in failing to deliver the telegram to the addressee, but that does not relieve it from liability for its negligent assurance that it had been delivered. It is true, the defendant introduced evidence in contradiction; but, where there is conflicting evidence sufficient to go to the jury, they alone can pass upon its credibility, and we must assume as proved all facts found by their verdict, either directly or by necessary implication. This rule applies only to issues of fact properly submitted, or to questions of mixed law and fact, in the absence of legal error in the trial. The plaintiff testifies that she confidently relied upon her kinsman, Huntley, meeting her, and that, if she had not been assured that the telegram had been delivered, she would have taken her husband with her, and that she suffered great mental anguish in finding herself at Wadesboro, practically alone and friendless, with three helpless children and the dead body of another. She says the railroad agent, Boggs, was kind to her; but she was much delayed, and suffered greatly, not only from her disappointment, but also from being compelled to travel 18 miles through the country with no one but the driver. This testimony was clearly competent, and was certainly more than a scintilla. What she suffered, or whether she suffered at all, is not for us to say. The jury, who heard the testimony in its entirety, and had every opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, have said she did. To them alone belongs, by constitutional provision,...