Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1904-05-25

cally and reasonably, it must be so in
the other. That such damages can be
allowed see the following cases:
Young V. Telegraph Company, 1O7
N. c., IL S. E., 1914; Thompson v.
Telegraph Company, 1O7, N c., 449,
IL S. E., 427; Gray, Commun. Tel. Sec
tion IS; 4. Lawson, Pights, Rem and
Prac. section 1870; 2, Thomp. Neg. +.
BAT, section II; Sedg. DAM 18th ed!
section 1874; Suth. Dam. cd edition)
section 81; 20 Am. Law Rev, 367;
Meadows v. The Western Union Tele-
graph Company, 49 S. E., p. 512; Sher-
rill v. Tel Co., 100 N. c., 527, IA S. f.
"a; Cashion v. Tel. Co., 1913 N. c. 267,
81 S. E., 1873; Bennett Telegraph
Co., 1913 N. c., 1O3, 80 S. E. 294; Lyme
v. Tel. Co., 1923 N. c. 81 S. E., $50;
Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, PIP 658, 662,
663; Bryan v. Western Union Tel. Co ;,
As S. E. p. 93S; Hendricks v. Tel. Co.
1926 N. c., $50; Graham v. Tel Co,
109 La. 1GIl, "a South. go; Suther-
land, damages 9th ed) section CTS;
Joyce, Elec. Law, section 1926; Western
Union Tel. Co., " Bowles, (Tex. Civ
App 456; Western Union Tel. Co.,
v. Chambers (Tex Civ. App 273:
Western Union Tel. Co., v. Shaw, (Tex
Civ. App 433; Thompson v. Tel. Co :,
107 N. G. 44s: Telegraph Company v.
Cooper, Il Tex. 507; So Relic v. West.
ern Union Tel. Co.. IS Tex. 3OS. 40
Am. Rep. sos; Shear. & Red Neg Sec
ton COS; Chapman v. Western Union
Tel. Co.. 13 s. w. Rep; Reese v. w.
q. Tel. Co., 1913 Ind, 1894; w U. Tel
Co., v. Moore rs. Tex. &c; Telegraph
Co., v. Adams Is Tex. 531; Telegraph
Co., v. Feegles. IS Tex. 537; Stewart
v Telegraph Co., 66, Tex, $50; Tele-
graph Co., v. Simpson, 70, Tex, 422;
Wadsworth " W. U. Tel Co., Sc Tenn,
SOS; Suth. DAM, 259; Scott & Jar
nigan on Telegraphs, section 418, Sedg.
Dam. So: and Renihan v. Wright, p
Am. Stat. Rep. $50.
Many other authorities to the same
effect might have been cited; and az
many perhaps, against the doctrine,
but we think the better reasoning IS
in those cases establishing the doc
trine. The cases for and against the
doctrine will, perhaps, nearly all be
found referred to in the cases above
| mentioned.
That damages may be recovered for
the mental suffering occasioned and
| accompanied by physical injury or IA
| tigue is very generally held by the au
thorities, and pain of mind directly re
sulting from exposure, cold, hunger
| exertion and deprivation of a place
to sleep to which the plaintiff was sub
| jected as a natural result Of defend
ants negligence would properly come
within this well recognized rule. See
Riley " Railway Co., q w. Va
147
Mccoy v. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co
SO Wis. Sc.
Cen. r. R. Co., v. Lainer, SO Ga
$685.
Caldwell v. Central Park, q N. Y
Supp. 397.
| Davidson v. So. Pac. Co., "A Fed
476.
! Wright v. Compton, So Ind, 337.
Richmond etc. v. Norward, "a Va
1877, 10 Am. St. 827.
Carpenter v. Mex Nat r. Co., 8
Fed, 315.
! Stockton v. Frey, As Am. Doc
1873.
Brown v. c. M. & St. R. Co., II
w., 356. oil.
Hoover v. Haynes, SO N. W., 1872.
Where railroad companies have NET
ligently left passengers at wrong st;
ton and thereby exposed them to tn
cold, fatigue and suffering, verdct
J for damages for larger amounts
! proportion to the hardships undergon
: than the judgment here bears to tn
injury sustained have been held NJ
} excessive.
Lake Erie R. Co. v. Cloes, 80 }
: E., 5S8.
d M nn1