Newsome v. Western Union Tel. Co

• Decision Date: 06 October 1910
• Citation: 69 S.E. 10,153 N.C. 153
• Parties: NEWSOME v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

69 S.E. 10

(153 N.C. 153)

NEWSOME

v.WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 1910.

1. Telegraphs and Telephones (§ 67^*)— Obligation of Telegraph Companies. A telegraph company being a public agent, and compelled to accept telegrams offered for transmission and transmit them at the price fixed by the public authorities, it does not contract as to damages claimed by a sender simply because its agent was informed of the purpose for which an article ordered by the message was wanted.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cent. Dig. § 65; Dec. Dig. § 67.*]

2. Damages (§ 18*)—Remote and Speculative Damages—Recovery.

The damages recoverable must flow directly and naturally from the act complained of, and must be certain in their nature and cause from which they proceed, and damages which are uncertain and speculative, or merely based on conjectural probability of future loss, or which are not the natural and probable result of the act complained of, are too remote.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. § 37; Dec. Dig. § 18.*]

3. Telegraphs and Telephones (§ 67*)— Errors in Transmission of Messages— Liability—Damages.

A sender of a telegram ordering whisky for his raft hands, who refused to go into the water to construct rafts and take them to a point during a freshet unless they had whisky, may not recover substantial damages for the failure to receive the whisky, because of error in transmitting the message, based on the refusal of the men to construct and move the rafts, but his recovery is limited to nominal damages.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cent. Dig. §§ 64-08; Dec. Dig. § 67.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Sampson County; Cooke, Judge.

Action by Thomas J. Newsome against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

The issues submitted were:

"(1) Was the defendant guilty of negligence in the transmission of the message as delivered to it by the plaintiff? Ans. Yes.

"(2) What damage, if any, has plaintiff sustained by reason of the failure of the defendant to transmit the message as written and delivered to the defendant? Ans. Five hundred and twenty-four dollars and ten cents ($524.10)."

Robert C. Strong and A. S. Bernard, for appellant.

John D. Kerr and Geo. E. Butler, for appellee.

BROWN, J. The facts of this ease are stated fully in 137 N. C. 513, 50 S. E. 279. and 144 N. C. 178, 56 S. E. 863. The alleged negligence consists in transmitting a telegram to one Royal, Benson, N. C, ordering four gallons corn whisky to be sent by express to Mints Siding, in Sampson county, N. C. The signature was transcribed on the delivered telegram as T. J. Sessons, instead of T. J. Newsome. The plaintiff alleges that he ordered the whisky by agreement with his raft hands, who were preparing to construct rafts and take his timber and rosin to Wilmington during a freshet in February, 1902, and that they refused to go into the waterwithout it, in consequence of which he lost the benefit of the freshet, and was greatly endamaged.

The defendant requested an instruction that in no view of the evidence can plaintiff recover more than nominal damage, which was refused. The courts will be careful not to apply to a contract of this character a rule of damage which will impose upon the defendant an unreasonable and speculative liability, which an individual may avoid by declining to enter into the contract. The fact that the plaintiff informed the defendant's operator that he needed the whisky in order to get his rafting done will not allow us to hold the defendant to damages which from the very nature of the case must be purely speculative and remote. It should be borne in mind that the defendant, being a public agency, was compelled to accept the telegram, and to agree with the plaintiff, at the price fixed by the North Carolina Corporation Commission, to transmit it. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the defendant contracted with reference to the damages claimed by the...