{
  "id": 1545416,
  "name": "Western Union Telegraph Company v. Swearengen",
  "name_abbreviation": "Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Swearengen",
  "decision_date": "1910-03-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "94 Ark. 336"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "80 Ark. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1491231
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/80/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 249",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 4120,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.652,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1962072752351763e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5924758547699113
    },
    "sha256": "6edb625c68b561532d4bde5b909ff81724f75699109c8812ebe82dd2eb26af2a",
    "simhash": "1:5111640f7cb5ee39",
    "word_count": 677
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:43.945658+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Western Union Telegraph Company v. Swearengen."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nOn the 21st day of October, 1908, Ada Swearengen, J. T. Blackburn and George Swearengen brought this action against the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover damages for mental anguish caused by the negligent failure of the defendant to deliver a telegram sent from Magazine, Arkansas, to W. J. Blackburn, at Memphis, Tennessee, announcing the illness of J. T. Blackburn, and requesting him to \u201ccome at once if possible.\u201d\nJ. T. Blackburn and W. J. Blackburn were brothers; Ada Swearengen was their sister', and George Swearengen was the minor son of Ada Swearengen, and a nephew of the Blackburns.\nThe message was sent on the 5th day of November, 1907, and was as follows:\n\u201cTo W. J. Blackburn,\n\u201cNo. 235 Memphis, Tenn.,\n\u201cCare Elliott & Durke.\n\u201cJim is worse. Come at once if possible can.\n.\u201cGeorge Swearengen.\u201d\nIndorsed on the message was the following stipulation: \u201cThe company will not be liable for damages or statutory penalty in any case where the claim is not presented in writing within sixty days after thev message is filed with the company for transmission.\u201d\nThe only conversation George Swearengen, the sender of the message, had with the agent to whom the message was delivered was, the agent asked George how Mr. Blackburn was, and he replied that he was worse.\nThe message was filed with the defendant on Tuesday, but was never delivered. W. J. Blackburn came on the Saturday following to his brother\u2019s bedside, while he was living, and returned to Memphis before his death.\nAmong other things the defendant pleaded the claim of plaintiffs for damages was not presented in writing within the sixty days. \u2022\nThe only claim in writing presented to the defendant was the following:\n\u201cTo Western Union Telegraph Company,\n\u201cMagazine Ark.\n\u201cWe demand and claim damages for your failure to deliver the following message sent from Magazine, Ark., to Memphis, Tenn.:\n\u2018 \u201cA. Paid 40 centg.\n\u201c\u2018Magazine, 11-5-07.\n\u201c \u2018Mr. W. J. Blackburn,\n\u201c \u2018No. 235 S. Main, Memphis, Tenn.\n\u201c \u2018Care Elliott & Durke,\n\u201cJim is worse. Come at once if possible can.\n\u201c \u2018Geo. Swearengen.\u2019\n\u201cThe above message having been delivered to you at Magazine, Ark., on the 5th day of November, 1907, damages in the sum of $1,000 are claimed.\n\u201cGeo. Swearengen.\u201d\nThis notice was served by a constable on the 17th day of December, 1907.\nThe action was dismissed as to J. T. Blackburn. Ada Swearengen recovered $300.40, but George recovered nothing, and the defendant appealed.\nAda Swearengen was not mentioned in the message. There was no evidence that her interest therein was communicated to the defendant, or that she would suffer mental anguish if the message was not delivered, and she was not entitled to recover. Helms v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 249, and notes.\nMrs. Swearengen did not present any claim for damages in writing to the defendant within sixty days after the filing of the message according to the stipulation indorsed thereon, and was not entitled to recover. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Moxley, 80 Ark. 554. The claim of George was not sufficient to cover hers.\nJudgment reversed, and action dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George H. Eearons, Ros\u00e9/Hemingway, Cantrell & Lough-borough and Mechem & Mechem, for appellant.",
      "Appellee, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Western Union Telegraph Company v. Swearengen.\nOpinion delivered March 28, 1910.\n1. Telegraphs and telephones \u2014 negligence\u2014who may recover. \u2014 One whose name was not mentioned in a telegraphic message and whose interest therein was not communicated to the telegraph company cannot recover damages for mental anguish caused by the failure of such company to deliver the message. (Page 337.)\n2. Same \u2014 notice of claim of damages. \u2014 Where a telegram contained the usual indorsement that the company will not be liable for damages \u201cwhere the claim is not presented in writing within sixty days after the message is filed with the company for transmission,\u201d a notice of a claim of damages, signed by one person, will not inure to the benefit of another person whose claim is not mentioned. (Page 338.)\nAppeal from Logan Circuit Court, Southern District; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge;\nreversed.\nGeorge H. Eearons, Ros\u00e9/Hemingway, Cantrell & Lough-borough and Mechem & Mechem, for appellant.\nAppellee, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 358,
  "last_page_order": 360
}