{ "id": 8627009, "name": "EVELYN JOLLEY v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Jolley v. Western Union Telegraph Co.", "decision_date": "1933-07-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "108", "last_page": "110", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "205 N.C. 108" } ], "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": "83 S. E., 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N. C., 98", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657510 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/168/0098-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 838", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 S. E., 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612810 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0136-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 218, "char_count": 3796, "ocr_confidence": 0.464, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.621017481241883e-08, "percentile": 0.4906129662385722 }, "sha256": "72942a6aa0d8dfa3ac0b581f4991944b7f1d801a3a7de60dc5210006b6206cd2", "simhash": "1:2e7491104fe4cefd", "word_count": 651 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:31.066060+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "EVELYN JOLLEY v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Connoe, J.\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Cleveland County in this action was heard at the Fall Term, 1932, of this Court, and was decided on 8 February, 1933. The judgment was affirmed. See Jolley v. Telegraph Co., 204 N. C., 136, 167 S. E., 575.\nOn 9 March, 1933, tbe defendant filed its petition for a rehearing of its appeal. Tbe petition was allowed, and tbe appeal docketed for a rehearing on 27 May, 1933. Rule 44, Rules of Practice in tbe Supreme Court. '200 N. C., 838.\nIn its petition, tbe defendant contends that there was error at tbe trial in tbe Superior Court, with respect to tbe third issue involving tbe damages which plaintiff is entitled to recover of tbe defendant, and that tbis Court erroneously failed to sustain its contention in that respect, which was duly presented by its appeal from tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court. It contends that on all tbe evidence at tbe trial, tbe plaintiff was not entitled to recover of tbe defendant more than nominal damages for tbe injury which she sustained by reason of tbe negligent failure of tbe defendant to transmit and deliver tbe telegram which she bad filed with tbe defendant. Tbis contention was carefully considered at tbe bearing of defendant\u2019s appeal, as will appear by reference to tbe opinion of tbis Court. On tbe authorities cited in the opinion, tbe defendant\u2019s contention was not sustained. There was evidence tending to show that plaintiff was entitled to recover of tbe defendant compensatory damages. Tbis evidence was submitted to tbe jury under instructions which are in accord with well settled principles of law.\nTbe defendant\u2019s petition for a rehearing of its appeal is dismissed on the authority of Weston v. Lumber Co., 168 N. C., 98, 83 S. E., 693. It does not appear from tbe petition that tbe question of law presented thereby was decided hastily or without due consideration; or that any material'fact or pertinent principle of law was overlooked by tbis Court. No additional authority supporting tbe contention of tbe defendant has been cited in tbe brief filed by tbe defendant on tbe rehearing of its appeal. McIntosh N. C. Practice & Procedure, p. 811. Tbe decision at tbe bearing of defendant\u2019s appeal is in accord with tbe authorities cited in tbe opinion, and with well settled principles of law. Tbe decision will stand, and tbe judgment affirming tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court will not be disturbed.\nFurthermore, it is observed that the sufficiency of plaintiff\u2019s telegram to create an acceptance of the position to which she had been elected, and to make a contract between her and the trustees of the Manteo High School, does not seem to have been questioned at the trial of the action. All the evidence showed that she had been duly elected as a teacher in the Manteo High School for the term of one year, at a fixed salary, and that she failed to receive this salary because of the negligent breach by the defendant of its contract with her to transmit and deliver her telegram of acceptance.\nPetition dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Connoe, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. T. Falls for plaintiff.", "Francis B. Stark and Alfred S. Barnard for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EVELYN JOLLEY v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\n(Filed 12 July, 1933.)\nAppeal and Error K f \u2014 Petition to rehear is dismissed in this case.\nWhere it does not appear upon a petition to rehear that the question of law therein presented was decided without due consideration or that the Court overlooked any material fact or principle of law; and no additional authority is presented by petitioners in their brief on the rehearing, and there is no error of law in the decision, the petition will be dismissed.\nPetitioN by defendant for a rehearing of its appeal from tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court of Cleveland County in tbis aetion.\nPetition dismissed.\nB. T. Falls for plaintiff.\nFrancis B. Stark and Alfred S. Barnard for defendant." }, "file_name": "0108-01", "first_page_order": 172, "last_page_order": 174 }