Court Opinion

ID: 9807765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:15:20.526848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:46.203817
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
I concur in the judgment of this Court, upon the ground that, after the telegram was delivered to plaintiff at Raleigh,-he notified defendant’s office here that there was proN able error in the transmission of the message; that the matter was one of financial importance to him, and requested the defendant to investigate at once. This occurred in ample time to save plaintiff from loss, and was complete notice to the defendant’s agents here of' the important character of the message, and that financial loss might result to plaintiff in case an error had been committed. When they had the message repeated for their own information, they informed the plaintiff that there was no error committed, and upon such reassurance the plaintiff had a right to rely. As is held in Williams v. Telegraph Co., 136 N. C., 82, plaintiff was not bound to notify defendant of each particular item of damage that might result, hut it is sufficient if defendant had notice that financial loss would result from error in transmitting the message.
*231This view of the case renders it -unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by the learned counsel for defendant.
Me. Justice WalKEk concurs in this opinion.