{
  "id": 11272113,
  "name": "W. F. RAIFORD and Wife v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Raiford v. Western Union Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "489",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "160 N.C. 489"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 N. C., 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660404
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 N. C., 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658257
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/159/0306-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 3029,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2391376871779011
    },
    "sha256": "d152af49543d9b7b73b4c6f3899109ceae8a38c2ff4b5b2675ad589270d2430a",
    "simhash": "1:ca989d14316c6975",
    "word_count": 511
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:58.976002+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BkowN, J., dissenting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "W. F. RAIFORD and Wife v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, 0. J.\nTbis is an action for recovery of mental anguish for failure to deliver a message sent from Bonifay, Fla., to Wade, N. C. Tbe answer admitted tbe prompt receipt of tbe message at Wade. Tbe operator testified tbat be placed tbe telegram in a stamped envelope and deposited it in tbe mail box, directed to tbe sendee, wbo lived two miles out, on tbe E. F. D. route. A colored man corroborated tbis statement. Tbe mail carrier testified tbat no sucb letter was found in tbat box or received by bim. Tbe plaintiff testified tbat tbe telegram was never received. Tbe court charged if tbe letter was thus mailed, to answer tbe issue in favor of tbe defendant. Tbe jury found to tbe contrary, and assessed tbe plaintiffs\u2019 damages at $200.\nTbe jury found upon tbe evidence that under tbe laws of Florida tbe courts do not allow a recovery for mental angmisb for failure to deliver a telegram. Tbe court upon tbis verdict entered judgment in favor of tbe defendant, and tbe plaintiffs appealed.\nthe negligence alleged occurred entirely in tbis State, and in any aspect of the case, judgment should- bave been entered in favor of the plaintiff. Penn v. Telegraph Co., 159 N. C., 306. Even bad it not been shown that the failure to deliver promptly occurred entirely in tbis .State, \u201cThere bave been numerous cases in which mental anguish has been recovered where the message was sent from a point outside tbis State to a point in tbis State.\u201d These cases will be found collected in Penn v. Telegraph Co., supra, which overrules Johnson v. Telegraph Co., 144 N. C., 410, which is the only case in which we bave held to the contrary.\nTJpon tbe verdict, judgment must be entered in favor of tbe plaintiffs.\nReversed.\nBkowN, J., dissenting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "II. L. Cook for plaintiffs.",
      "Bose & Bose for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. F. RAIFORD and Wife v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\n(Filed 4 December, 1912.)\n1. Telegraphs \u2014 Free Delivery Limits \u2014 Mailed Telegram \u2014 Negligence \u2014Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury.\nWhen the addressee of a telegram is beyond the free delivery limits of the telegraph company\u2019s terminal office, and there is conflicting evidence as to whether, the defendant company promptly mailed it to the addressee, a finding of the jury in plaintiff\u2019s favor, under an instruction to find for the defendant if the telegram was thus mailed, is conclusive.\n2. Telegraphs \u2014 Mental Anguish \u2014 Interstate Messages \u2014 Lex Loci Contractus \u2014 Place of Negligence \u2014 Recovery.\nWhen a telegraph company receives for transmission. a telegram in a State where a recovery for damages for mental anguish alone is not permitted, to be delivered in North Carolina, where such recovery is permitted, and there is negligence in the delivery here, the decisions of this State control. Semille, if the negligence occurred elsewhere, a recovery could also be had here in such case. $\nBrown, J., dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Peebles, J., at April Term, 1912, of CUMBERLAND.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Chief Justice Clark.\nII. L. Cook for plaintiffs.\nBose & Bose for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0489-01",
  "first_page_order": 529,
  "last_page_order": 530
}