Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-18
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRC!NIAN-PllOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
KENYON V. w. U. TEL. CO..

KENYON V. w. L. TEL CO.
Suorme Court of North Carolina.
March "a. 1900.
THE SENDER OF a TELEGRAM
CAN NOT RECOVER DAMAGES
FOR MENTAL ANGUISH BECAUSE
OF THE NEGLECT OF THE CON-
PANY TO DELIVER IT, If THE
COMPANY HAD NO INFORMA-
TON FROM THE FACE OF THE
MESSAGE. OR OTHERWISE, THAT
THE SENDER WAS SICK, OR THE
PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE
THE SENDER CAN ALWAYS RE
COVER THE SUM PAID FOR TIE
MESSAGE. IF IT Is NOT DELIV-
Erred PROMPTLY.
The facts are set out In the opinion
CT the Court:
The Court says:
The plaintiff sues for damages sus-
tanned by herself, as sender, for non
delivery OF the following message, sent
from Greensboro to her cousin at Rcids-
Vile, n. c.: Meet me tomorrow.
twelve O'clock The complaint AYERS
That the plaintiffs aunt was very i'll
in Eoidvillc: that by reason Of the non
delivery of the message her cousin
the sendee) did not meet the plain
tiff on arrival at the train, who, hav-
ing an infant with her. was delayed at
the station Till she could get assistance
10 carry the child, and she was there.
by prevented from getting to her aunts
residence until just after she had
dropped into Inconsistencies. death oc-
curing in few minutes: and that the
failure to see and talk with her aunt
caused the plaintiff great mental an
guish. The rule of damages for breach
of contract is such as would arise in
The usual order of things from such
breach of contract. or such as may rea-
sonably be supposed to have been in
The contamination of both parties at
the time they made the contract, us the
probable result of the breach of il. The
courts Of this and other States which
recognize mental anguish as an element
cr damages have not departed from
this rule. 1t is immaterial. under our
system of practice, whether the action
is In tort for the negligence in the dis
charge of public duty or for breach
OF contract for prompt delivery, for the
recovery III either case is compcnsa-
non Tor the injury done the plaintiff
and which was reasonably in contcm-
nlation Of the parties as the natural
result Of Il breach of the contract or
default in discharging the duty under
taken. In this instance it docs not an
pear from the face OF the message that
any mental anguish would he likely to
result from u failure to deliver ii. and
there was no evidence that the plaintiff
gave the agent OF the defendant in
Greensboro. whence the message was
sent, any informant on concerning the
purpose or intent Of the message other
than is shown in the copy Of the mes
Il
her aunt was sick. and made no state
ment beyond the delivery OF the mes
sage for transmission. In all the cases
in this court (and in all other, so far as
our researches gO) in which n verdict
Tor damages for mental anguish have
been sustained. the telegraph company
had notice that n failure to deliver
might reasonably cause mental anguish
to the sender or sendce. or to some one
for whom the sender or sen6ec was act
ing as agent. In such case the dam
ages for mental anguish are really nc
tuai damages in reasonable contcnlpla-
ton &c both parties. if the message
should 10; be delivered. In every case
in which such damages have been al
lowed. the fact that the telegraph com
rary had notice Of the urgency and
importance OF The message has been
relied on to-w-yrrTHr ri1e rcc0vCTy, and
alluded to in the opinion. The court
erred in refusing the prayer for instruc-
tons, which was as follows: LAS there
was nothing in the message 10 indicate
the Importance Of prompt delivery, nor
was the attention of the company in
any way called to such matters. the
plaintiff can not recover any damages
for mental suffering. and You will not
take that into consideration in making
up your verdict. Error.
MARSH V. RAMSEY.