Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Walters

• Citation: 106 Miss. 59,63 So. 194
• Decision Date: 13 October 1913
• Docket Number: 16017
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. MRS. FANNIE WALTERS

63 So. 194

106 Miss. 59

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. MRS. FANNIE WALTERS

No. 16017

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 13, 1913

APPEAL from the circuit court of Lincoln county, HON. D. M. MILLER Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Fannie Walters against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Cause reversed and remanded.

McNair & Brady and Hermon Dean, attorneys for appellant.

J. N Yawn and Cassedy & Cassedy, attorneys for appellee.

The record in this case has been lost.

OPINION

REED, J.

Mrs Fannie Walters obtained a judgment for one thousand five hundred dollars against the Western Union Telegraph Company as punitive damages from the failure to deliver two telegrams to her. The first telegram was sent from Sandy Hook, Mississippi, on January 29, 1911, and read: "Mr. Jack Kelly was killed last night. Notify his people." The second telegram was sent from Seminary, Mississippi, on January 31, 1911, and was as follows: "Did you know brother Jack had been killed at Sandy Hook? We failed to hear from you. On way to Columbia to investigate. He was buried to-day." Both telegrams were directed to her at Bogalousa, Louisiana, where she resided and was engaged as a dentist in the practice of her profession.

Appellant seeks to be relieved from liability by claiming (1) that reasonable and sufficient efforts were made to deliver the messages; and (2) that the home and the office of appellee were without the free delivery limits of Bogalousa, and a special fee for delivery beyond such limits was not paid. Considerable testimony was taken relative to these two defenses, and the verdict of the jury decided them in favor of appellee. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain conversations between appellee and her companion, Mrs. Burke, and appellant's messenger boy, regarding the failure to deliver the messages. It is claimed that such conversation, which contained statements made by the delivery messenger, is not admissible under the rule announced in the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Jackson, 95 Miss. 471, 49 So. 737. It was there decided that "statements made by the delivery messenger of a telegraph company, several days after the delivery of a message, touching the time of its receipt at the office charged with its delivery, are not admissible in evidence in a suit against the company for a failure to promptly deliver it."

The case before us is unlike the Jackson Case, in that the conversations with the messenger boy took place...