{
  "id": 8658686,
  "name": "BENNETT v. TELEGRAPH CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bennett v. Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1901-04-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "104",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 103"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659297
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N. C., 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659079
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/126/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657848
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658843
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N. C., 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652397
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0118-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 2864,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0309557456416357e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7465960370662537
    },
    "sha256": "4bfcf69d7c8aef0e0fbf479994b96148e40dd761f2eff88ada22b2b172cbf443",
    "simhash": "1:1a1b55a00b1f8b5f",
    "word_count": 501
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BENNETT v. TELEGRAPH CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.\nThe defendant objects in this Court for the first time, that the complaint does not aver directly that the sendee would have come if he had received the message promptly. It is alleged inferentially. The direct averment should have been made, but upon the face of the complaint there is not a \u201cstatement of a defective cause of action,\u201d but a \u201cdefective statement of a good cause of action,\u201d which is cured by failing to demur thereto. Ladd v. Ladd, 121 N. C., 118, and other cases cited in Clark\u2019s Code (3rd Ed.), sec. 242; Bank v. Cocke, 127 N. C., 473. As the case goes back on another ground, the plaintiff will have opportunity to ask leave to amend.\nThe objection that the relationship of sendee (father-in-law) does not entitle plaintiff to recover for mental anguish, by reason of failure to- be at his daughter\u2019s funeral, is answered by the discussion and decision in Cashion v. Tel. Co., 123 N. C., 267. The relationship of the parties need not be disclosed in the message where the telegram relates to sickness or death. Lyne v. Tel. Co., 123 N. C., 129; Cashion v. Tel. Co., 124 N. C., 459; Kennon v. Tel. Co., 126 N. C., 232. In fact, however, in this case it was shown on the face of the telegram and the agent also had knowledge of the fact. Kennon v. Tel. Co., 126 N. C., 232.\nWithout discussing the other matters, which may not arise in another trial, it appears that in response to the sixth prayer for instruction (which taken and construed as a whole was proper), the case merely states, \u201cthe Court charged the jury fully upon the law. to which there was no exception.\u201d But the appellant was entitled to have the Judge set out what he charged in lieu of that prayer, that this Court might see whether it \u201csubstantially\u201d oar \u201cfully\u201d covered the prayer asked. Wilson v. Ry., 120 N. C., 531.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Watson j Buxton & Watson, for the plaintiff.",
      "Crlenn & Manly, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BENNETT v. TELEGRAPH CO.\n(Filed April 9, 1901.)\n1. APPEAL \u2014 Exceptions\u25a0\u2014Waiver.\nA defective averment of a good cause of action is cured by a failure to demur thereto.\n2. TELEGRAPHS- \u2014 Mental Anguish \u2014 Damages \u2014 Relationship of Parties\u2022 \u2014 Presumption.\nMental anguish will not he presumed from failure of father-in-law to be at funeral of daughter-in-law, but is a matter of proof.\n3. TELEGRAPHS \u2014 Relationship of Parties.\nThe relationship of the parties need not be disclosed in the message, where the telegram relates to sickness or death.\n4. INSTRUCTIONS \u2014 Special Instructions \u2014 Trial.\nIt is the duty of the trial judge to set out specifically in the case on appeal the charge he gave in lieu of the instruction requested.\nActioN by R. L. Bennett against The Western Union Telegraph Company, heard by Judge JE. W. Timberlahe and a jury, at November Term, 1900, of SuRRY County Superior Court. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nWatson j Buxton & Watson, for the plaintiff.\nCrlenn & Manly, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 139,
  "last_page_order": 140
}