Case ID: sc_109/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gage.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

9909
    SMITH v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
    (95 S. E. 325.)
    Telegraph and Telephone—Liability—Mistake in Addressee.—A telegraph company is not liable for failure to deliver to plaintiff a message which by mistake of a doctor was directed to plaintiff when meant for his brother.
    Before Rice, J., Union, Spring term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Frank Smith against Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    
      Messrs. Barron & Barron, for appellant,
    cite: As to the duty of a telegraph company when it discovers that the person, for whom the message is intended, lives beyond the free delivery limits: 77 S. C. 181; 47 S. E. 607; 48 S. E. Rep. 653; 74 S. C. 304; 84 S. C. 5; 81 S. C. 432. As to delivery of a message to one not authorised to receive it: 92 S. C. 214; 78 S. C. 503; 100 S. C. 64.
    
      Messrs. John Gary Mvans and /. A. Sawyer, for respondent.
    February 19, 1918.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gage.

Action for failure to deliver to the plaintiff a telegram directed to him, and for damages for the consequent mental anguish. Verdict directed for the defendant; appeal by the plaintiff.

The circumstances of the case are these: One John Smith, of Union county, S. C., was ill at Pryor’s Hospital, in Chester, S. C. He had two brothers in Union county, Oscar and Frank Smith. Dr. Pryor sent the telegram to Frank, calling him to the bedside of John. The intention of Dr. Pryor was to send the message to Oscar, whom he knew, and with whom he had engaged in phone conversation about John’s condition, and not to Frank, whom he did not know, and with whom he had not conferred. The direction of the telegram to Frank in the place of Oscar was a mistake of Dr. Pryor. These facts were clearly proven by Dr. Pryor, and no reasonable conclusion can be drawn to the contrary. If that be so, then Frank has plainly no cause of action against the company.

The judgment is affirmed.