{
  "id": 8660936,
  "name": "J. F. BENNETT v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bennett v. Western Union Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "496",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 N.C. 496"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 N. C., 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658238
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0154-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N. C., 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/165/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650982
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0527-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 371,
    "char_count": 6477,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37940107705121034
    },
    "sha256": "102e28b275f138794f56a01d2dd0e377e1a288de1e2d3bdb5a289092cc82cbdd",
    "simhash": "1:f92536a2c6344b15",
    "word_count": 1148
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:21.378028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. F. BENNETT v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThis is an appeal from a nonsuit in an action to recover damages for mental anguish caused by failure to deliver a telegram. The plaintiff left the bedside of his brother, who was quite ill at his home near Eennettsville, S. C., on Sunday afternoon, 28 April, 1913. The physicians told him that he might safely leave, but he enjoined the family to wire him if his brother grew worse. Next morning the brother-in-law of the brother phoned to Hamlet and caused the following telegram to be sent, addressed to the plaintiff at Eaeford, N. C.: \u201cCome bach to see your brother at once. W. II. Pearson.\u201d This telegram was filed at 9 a. m., according to the evidence for the plaintiff, which must be taken as true on this appeal.\nThe plaintiff testified that he called that day at the defendant\u2019s office in Eaeford three times, i. e., at 12 o\u2019clock, at 1 p. m., and again at 3 p. m., and asked for a telegram, but was told there was none for him; he left at 3 p. m., and asked the defendant\u2019s agent to forward the telegram, if any came for him, to Aberdeen. This was not done, and he did not receive the telegram till he got back to Hamlet Tuesday night and had learned that his brother had died at 2 :30 p. m. that day. The defendant company tben presented a bill for 25 cents for the telegram, which the plaintiff says he paid under protest, saying that he would bring suit for damages.\nThe plaintiff further testified that at Raeford he was 35 miles from his brother\u2019s home, and if the telegram had been delivered, he would at once have gone to his brother\u2019s bedside either by train, which made connection, or through the country by automobile or with horses. He testified to the close and affectionate relations that existed between him and his brother, and the mental anguish he suffered by reason of being deprived of an opportunity of seeing him again by reason of the nondelivery of the telegram.\nOn the back of the telegraph blank was the usual requirement that any claim for damages must be presented to the company in writing within sixty days after filing the message. This regulation has been held reasonable and valid in Sherrill v. Tel. Co., 109 N. C., 527, and has been often approved since; see citations in Anno. Ed.\nThe plaintiff further testified that on 29 May, 1912, he wrote a letter addressed to the defendant\u2019s agent at Hamlet, which he posted himself in the post-office at Georgetown, S. C. The court would not permit him to testify as to' the contents of this letter. He thereupon served notice on the defendant\u2019s counsel to produce the letter, and this not being done, the court permitted him to testify that in said letter he stated to the company that he \u201cwould make demands on it for $5,000 for nondelivery of the telegram sent to him at Raeford on 29 April, 1912.\u201d He was then asked: \u201cDid you tell him (the addressee of the letter) what the telegram was, or what the nature of it was?\u201d On objection by the defendant, this was ruled out, and the plaintiff excepted, as he also did to the nonsuit, which was granted on motion of the defendant.\nIt was error to exclude the question, which was asked to show more fully the contents of the letter, and it was also error to grant the non-suit. The court seems to have been of opinion that the letter was not sufficient to identify the telegram. But there was no evidence of any other telegram sent from Hamlet to the plaintiff on 29 April, or on any other day. There was also evidence, which must be taken as true, that the defendant had been already put on notice by the plaintiff of his dissatisfaction, at the time payment was collected from him for the telegram.\nThe object of the sixty days notice, as stated in Sherrill v. Tel. Co., supra, is to give the telegraph company notice within sixty days, before its records may be sent off or the memory of its agents becomes indistinct. This letter was sufficient,to recall the matter to the attention of the agent at Hamlet, and was mailed within the sixty days. Lytle v. Tel. Co., 165 N. C., 504. Such mailing raised the \u201cpresumption that the letter was received, and therefore was duly served.\u201d Cogdell v. R. R., 132 N. C.., 855, citing Bragaw v. Supreme Lodge, 124 N. C., 154.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shaw & MacLean for plaintiff.",
      "Bose & Rose and George H. Fearons for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. F. BENNETT v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\n(Filed 31 March, 1915.)\n1. Telegraphs \u2014 Written Demand \u2014 \u201cSixty Days\u201d \u2014 Valid Stipulations.\nThe stipulation printed on the back of a telegraph blank requiring that any claim for damages must be presented to the company in writing within sixty days after filing the message, is a reasonable and valid one.\n2. S\u00e1me \u2014 Sufficient Compliance.\nIt is a sufficient compliance with the stipulation printed on the back of a telegram requiring that a claim for damages must be presented to the company in writing within sixty days, when the plaintiff, the sendee of the message, promptly notifies the agent at the terminal point that he would bring suit for the delay, and afterwards writes the agent at the receiving point that he \u201cwould make demand on the company for $5,000 for nondelivery of the telegram sent to him at B. on 29 April, 1912,\u201d it further appearing that this had been the only message sent to him, and that all of the communications occurred within the sixty days stipulated for by the company.\n3. Same \u2014 Parol Evidence \u2014 Notice to Produce Original.\nIn an action to recover damages of a telegraph company for its negligent failure to deliver a message relating to sickness, the court permitted the plaintiff to testify as to the contents of a letter written to defendant\u2019s agent within the sixty days (after notification to the defendant and its failure to produce the original letter) that he \u201cwould make demand on it for $5,000 for nondelivery of'the telegram sent to him at R. on 29 April, 1912,\u201d but rejected testimony as to what the message was about, or its nature. Held,, the ruling of the court excluding this evidence was erroneous.\n4. Damages \u2014 Written Demand \u2014 Telegraphs\u2014Mailing Letter \u2014 Presumptions.\n\" The mailing of a letter properly addressed is presumptive evidence that it was received by the addressee within a reasonable time, which applies, in this case, to a letter .making demand upon a telegraph company for damages arising from its negligent delay in delivering a telegram to the sendee.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Coolce, J., at October Term, 1914, of Oum> BERLAND.\nShaw & MacLean for plaintiff.\nBose & Rose and George H. Fearons for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0496-01",
  "first_page_order": 552,
  "last_page_order": 555
}