{ "id": 11270890, "name": "NANNIE J. BAILEY and husband v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Bailey v. Western Union Telegraph Co.", "decision_date": "1909-03-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "316", "last_page": "318", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "150 N.C. 316" } ], "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": [], "analysis": { "cardinality": 305, "char_count": 4503, "ocr_confidence": 0.456, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.7531605124468647 }, "sha256": "f937eca6267e9a5e096a6181c94a636c58a0e9a10b95a42372c4242cd9afd85d", "simhash": "1:6b9aec0a7e07620c", "word_count": 771 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "NANNIE J. BAILEY and husband v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbis is an action for negligence in delayed delivery of a message sent to plaintiff, at Warsaw, N. C., informing her that Mrs. Elmore (who was her sister) had died that morning and would be buried next afternoon. The telegram was sent from La Grange, N. C., on Sunday, and reached Warsaw that afternoon at 5 :33, but was not delivered until 9 :30, being too late for plaintiff to take the train going north, which passed at 8:51, and which the plaintiff says she would have taken and could have gotten to tbe residence of tbe deceased, eight mies south of LaGrange, in time for tbe funeral. Tbe next train going in that direction passed next day at 11 A. M.', too late to get to tbe funeral by going to LaGrange.\nTbe husband of plaintiff met. tbe telegraph messenger, who was also a railroad station band, going to tbe depot, where tbe husband himself bad just been, about 6 P. M., and told him be was expecting such a message, and to bring it right out,, as bis wife, in such event, would go on tbe 8 :51 train. This was excepted to, but was competent as tending to show that with inquiry tbe agent could have learned where plaintiff resided. Tbe same messenger brought tbe telegram to plaintiff\u2019s residence, which was 300 yards from tbe depot, about 9 :30 o\u2019clock. Warsaw is a town of 750 inhabitants. It cannot be seriously contended that tbe defendant was not guilty of negligence; nor was there error in admitting evidence that plaintiff suffered mental anguish because of failure to receive tbe message in time to take tbe 8 :51 train. That is tbe gist of tbe action. Tbe object in using the telegraph was to give the sendee opportunity to attend tbe funeral.\nThere was evidence that plaintiff, by getting up at 5 o\u2019clock next morning, could have driven across tbe country, twenty-seven to thirty miles, and thus have reached tbe funeral in time, notwithstanding failure to catch tbe train \u2014 tbe 8:51 train \u2014 tbe evening before, or have gone on at 11 A. M. to Goldsboro and driven from there, some fourteen miles. Tbe plaintiff introduced evidence of her husband\u2019s physical disability to ride so far, and she might have been unwilling to travel across country without him. We could not bold as a matter of law that it was incumbent on plaintiff to make such exertions as that to cure tbe defendant\u2019s neglect. At tbe most, failure to do so, if practicable, would be a matter in mitigation of damages, and there was no prayer asked in that view. Tbe court ruled that it was plaintiff\u2019s duty to use all reasonable diligence to avoid tbe consequence of defendant\u2019s delay in delivery of tbe message and submitted to tbe jury, upon-tbe evidence, as an issue of fact: \u201cCould tbe plaintiffs, by tbe exercise of reasonable diligence, have attended tbe funeral, -notwithstanding tbe failure of tbe defendant to deliver the telegram in time to take the northbound train on 28 July, 1907?\u201d to which the jury resxionded \u201cNo.\u201d \"We do not -find that the other exceptions require discussion.\nNo Error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Stevens, Beasley & Weeks and H. A. Grady for plaintiff.", "J. D. Bellamy & Son for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NANNIE J. BAILEY and husband v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\n(Filed 24 March, 1909.)\n1. Telegraphs \u2014 Delivery of Message \u2014 Negligence\u2014Evidence.\nEvidence that the husband of feme plaintiff told the messenger who, about four hours afterwards, delivered the message, that he was expecting a message, and to bring it out to his wife, is competent, upon the question of negligent delay in delivery, when the addressee lived but a short distance from defendant\u2019s'office and delivery was delayed several hours.\n2. Telegraphs \u2014 Death Message \u2014 Evidence\u2014Mental Anguish.\nWhen there is evidence tending to show negligence on the part of defendant telegraph company in delivering a message announcing the death of a sister, evidence of mental anguish suffered by plaintiff is competent.\n3. Telegraphs \u2014 Delivery of Message \u2014 Negligence\u2014Damages\u2014Avoidance \u2014 Evidence.\nWhen negligent delay is shown in the delivery of a message, and the uncontradicted evidence in defense is that by driving a distance through the country trains could have been caught which would have enabled plaintiff to have reached destination before the funeral, the court cannot say, as a matter of law, that it was plaintiff\u2019s duty to thus avoid the injury, but the question is one for the jury, under all the facts and circumstances of the case.\nAction tried before Lyon, I., and a jury, at December Term, 1908, of DupliN.\nDefendant appealed.\nStevens, Beasley & Weeks and H. A. Grady for plaintiff.\nJ. D. Bellamy & Son for defendant." }, "file_name": "0316-01", "first_page_order": 360, "last_page_order": 362 }