Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-08-27
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DlGESTED BY ". B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virEinian- Pilot.)
LAUDIE v. WESTERN U. TEL. CO
Supreme Court of North Carolina,
April rs, 1889.

LAUDIE V. WESTERN U. TEL. CO.
Supreme Court of North Carolina,
April rs, 1889.
WHERE. A HUSBAND, FOR HIS
WIFE'S BENEFIT. TELEGRAPHs
IN HIS OWN NAME. THE DEATH
OF THEIR CHILD, AND RE-
QUESTS ADDRESSED TO PRE-
PARE GRAVE AND MEET THE
BODY. HIS FAILURE TO NOTIFY
COMPANY THAT TELEGRAM
WAS FOR HIS WIFE'S BENEFIT
WILL NOT PRECLUDE HER
FROM RECOVERING FOR MENT-
AL SUFFERING CAUSED BY
FAILURE TO DELIVER.
This was an action by q husband and
wife against the telegraph company
Tor damages for mental anguish SUI
Tered by the wife caused by It's failure
to deliver a telegram, and by the as
surance OF the company that said tele-
gram had been delivered, when In fact
1t had not been delivered. The infant
child of the plaintiffs had died and the
husband, by an agreement with his
wife. and for her benefit delivered to
the company u telegram TO IL relative
asking him to meet the body and pre-
pare grave. He also notified the
agent that 1t was an important mat
ter relating to the burial of the child
me agent assured him that it would
be forwarded Immediately, and to be
sure of delivery the said Laudie went
back to the Office of the company
about II o'clock on the same day, and
was assured by it that the message
had been delivered to its destination
He thereupon informed his wife. tho
feme plaintiff: and she. acting and re-
lying upon said representations of the
detendant. prepared the body of her
infant. and started with il to Wndcs-
Doro on the morning of May 25th, reach
Ing mat point about Z O'clock a. M.
expecting to be met there in accord
ance with said telegram The said
message was not delivered on May
24th, as assured by the company, but
not until the following day,--too late
Tor any one to meet the fcmc plaintiff
on account of the delivery. she
mad to remain for several hours at tho
depot i'm Wadcsboro. alone with the
dead body Of her infant and then mako
arrangements to carry the same across
The country to Chesterfield. by which
she suffered great mental anguish ne
she alleges. The feme plaintiff. i'm or
der to maintain her action. proposed To
show that the message was sent by an
agreement with her. and for her bei,e
M, ana that she was the undsclosed
principal. which the court refused 10
permit To this ruling the plaintiff
excepted submitted to n nonsuit and
appealed.
The court says:
The only point presented To this cour,
ny the distinguished counsel who frank
ly admitted that it was covered by the
case of Cashion y. Telegraph Co. (at
this term) was that of an undisclosrd
principal. IL is due to them to say that
the Cashion Case had not been decided
when the appeal was taken. We see
no reason to reverse our ruling in that
case. and therefore hold that the plain
till IS not debarred from a recovery be-
cause her name was not signed to the
telegram, and the defendant was not
then notified that it was sent by her
direction or for her benefit. The facts
as presented tn us in this appeal are
stronger than those in the Cashion
case. and therefore briNg this case more
clearly within the rule. Even if the
male plaintiff had not notified the de-
PENDANT of the urgency of the message.
It's Importance clearly appeared upon
Its face; and the negligence of the de-