The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1894-03-11

SSinl5apm9n vs. Telegraph Company. next
cases. '"e AVN"s anu ANhhesaee
ydnnee supreme court Of North Carolina, In
car -o vs. Ieicgraph Company. loo s..
c5s.ss s'vl next cite ana follow the Texas
fgesss' citing 60 It's support also the cases
f6,t' ienhessee Kentucky and Indiana
r.fc3 q. WI! De remembered, are prell-
s't upoh the Texas cases.
lIabrii,s,y"at VS., Telegraph Co., supra, the
80 ~ OF Telegraph companies TO dam
Sl1vlul mental suffering caused by thelr
w., 70 transmit or deliver kilograms
rr,rt,n,a expressly ana po.ntcdly upon sae
siouhd that the mental sufferng pro.
tuN,a pN the compnuy's breach OF lite
os "ITact was within the contemplation
vi ,he company at the time 10 made the
~, dcl, as the result that would nat
ut11lly follow a breach OF 10.
qua The Texas court award damages
~ ule lndlNiuual Tor the poignant mental
sung resulting from being Wilfullv, pub
ilciN ami deliberately tainted on tho
Sttseet Dy an irate enemy with the insult
tlAl ne was q cOWardiy cur Simply be-
Sause me modification and wounded fccl-
nus mat would surely follow were With
II, the contemplation OF the tnsulterl
we apprehend not, and Yet IN the latter
CiNe me deliberate purpose OF the in
an,svt wound be to produce such mental
ungulsn To draw the comparison closer
sun, An individual borroWs his neigh
pot $ money, agreeing to pay az a given
nay, showing IN advance that his default
rowing fortunes TO his accommodating
Inenu OF utter financial ruin-a species
OF SUFFERING that, unfortunately, to many
" lar more acute than any connected
WIN the ties OF klnSnip Could damages
De allowed in that case FOR the mental
torture simply because the borrowing
friend contemplated and knew that Il
would follow as the result OF breach OF
yet such is the eject of the doctrine am
H9uuStl IN the stuart case when follow
ed TO It's original logical result. suppose
mother, whose child ia critically IN, CON
tracts with her peighhor at stipulated
price paid in advance, TO summon her
husband, temporarily absent some dis.
lance away and the ncghbor delays
complying with his contract until after
the death and burial of the child. Would
damages be awarded against him 10 com
peusdle the parents Tor me mental am
sutSh suffered by them in consequence
OF the absence Of the husband under such
clrcumsances2 We upprehcnd not And,
" not In the case OF the violated contract
between individuals, whore Is the reason
Tor applying dierent rule where one of
the contracting parties is n telegraph
company In all these cases, taking them
up serlatlm. In the order in which they
were rendered there is a conspicuous alb
sence of anything Ike logical reason
upon which to base the newly announced
doctrine OF allowing comparative dam
ages for injured feelings alone. They
simply follow each other without the nd
dition of any new Light or other attempt
at reason for the thing than Is contained
IN the parent Texas case, None Of them
undertake to invent any cruclble IN which
mental pain can. with anything like Judi
cial accuracy, be converted into cotnpen-
sative dollars; but all Of them are pie,
thoric with argument admirably suited
to cases that call for the infection OF
punishment, with none to guide us TO
the door OF Just compensation. Yet rs
n matter of course, none of them pretend
to ground the right of recovery upon INC