{
  "id": 8659232,
  "name": "T. J. NEWSOME v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newsome v. Western Union Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1907-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "178",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "144 N.C. 178"
    }
  ],
  "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": "137 N. C., 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656966
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/137/0513-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 3589,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.072421720329892e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5600760893781839
    },
    "sha256": "23af98e81e87f552d888742c377e5f7ed367b2bc7a9d5322ee4fdd5fabdef543",
    "simhash": "1:a06ef9fb845eb01f",
    "word_count": 617
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:07.773177+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. J. NEWSOME v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nTbis case is reported in 137 N. C., 513, and it is unnecessary to again state the facts. In the opinion of the Ghief Justice, speaking for the Court, it is there said: \u201cThis was error for two reasons: first, it did not appear in tire evidence that the whiskey would have been sent if the message, when received by the sendee, had had the plaintiff\u2019s name properly signed thereto.\u201d The negligence consists in an error in transmission, the signature of the plaintiff having been written \u201cT. J. Sessoms\u201d instead of \u201cT. J. Newsome,\u201d and so delivered to Eoyal, the sendee. It is, therefore, as already held, incumbent upon the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the proof that Eoyal was \u25a0deceived by the error and for that reason refused to ship the whiskey. The jury must also be satisfied that Eoyal understood that the word \u201ccorn,\u201d used in the message, meant \u201ccorn whiskey.\u201d\nWe find no evidence in the record tending to sustain these necessary allegations of fact, and, therefore, hold that .the Court erred in refusing to give the defendant\u2019s prayer for instructions to that effect. The only evidence which, it is argued by plaintiff, tends to support such allegation is that prior to 3 February, 1902, the date of the telegram, the plaintiff had purchased whiskey from Eoyal on credit. This fact, if true, is a mere collateral circumstance and tends to prove nothing. The failure to ship the \u201ccorn\u201d can be accounted for on a different hypothesis than the failure to get the message correctly delivered under the circumstances of the case, and therefore the evidence is insufficient. 1 Greenleaf Ev., sec. 12; 1 Stark. Ev., 471, note. Assuming that the message had been correctly transmitted, or that \u25a0 Eoyal was not misled as to the identity of the sender of the message and may also bave understood \u201ccorn\u201d to mean \u201ccorn whiskey,\u201d yet be may not bave filled tbe order for other reasons. He may not bave bad tbe article on band .at tbe time; again, be may personally bave neglected\" and overlooked tbe order and failed therefore to ship; or be may have preferred to bave tbe cash before shipping, or tbe shipment may bave gone astray, etc., etc. Tbe proof tendered does not exclude either of tbe above hypotheses and is consistent withal.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John D. Kerr .and George E. Butter for plaintiff.",
      "F. H. Basbee & Son and B. G. Strong for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. J. NEWSOME v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 March, 1907).\n1. Telegraph Companies \u2014 Message\u2014Error in Transmission \u2014 Sendee\u2019s Name Changed. \u2014 When in the transmission of a telegram ordering the shipment of four gallons of \u201ccorn,\u201d meaning corn whiskey, the name of the sender was erroneously transmitted and damages claimed on that account for failure to receive the whiskey, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the sendee was deceived by the error, and for that reason only failed to ship, and that he understood that corn whiskey was intended.\n2. Telegraph Companies \u2014 Message\u2014Error in Transmission \u2014 Evidence. \u2014 Where a telegram had been sent ordering goods which failed to arrive, it is not sufficient evidence to go to the jury upon liability of defendant for damages thereby claimed, to merely show that the sendee of the message had sold plaintiff goods on a credit before and since the time of the sending of the message, as the failure to ship or receive the whiskey may have been from other causes.\nCivil actioN, tried at Fall Term, 1906, of the Superior Court of SamsoN County, before Jones, J., and a jury.\nThe defendant excepted and appealed from the judgment rendered.\nJohn D. Kerr .and George E. Butter for plaintiff.\nF. H. Basbee & Son and B. G. Strong for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0178-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 220
}