Court Opinion

ID: 9808010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:24:27.414653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:18.025071
License: Public Domain

Clark, 0. J.,
dissenting: A telegraph company, unlike the postoffice, does not transmit a paper writing. There is no statute which requires a telegram to be written. No rule or custom of the.company to require it is shown in this case, and if there had been the company waived it, for it accepted the oral message, without objection. If there had been such rule, it must be shown that the'sender had notice of it. Hendricks v. Tel. Co., 126 N. C., 311; Carland v. Tel. Co., 74 Am. St., 394. In fact, a large proportion of telegrams have always been orally delivered to the company for transmission, and this proportion of oral messages lias been .greatly in- • creased by the use of the telephone by which a large number of messages are now orally delivered to the company. Whether the message is written down by the sender or the company is immaterial, for such writing is merely evidence of what the message was, which the company received for transmission. The transmission itself is not by a process decipherable by the eye, but by the ear only, and is therefore oral, as it were. 1 Joyce Elec., sec. 10. The defendant did not transmit a written message. The message in this case announced the death of feme plaintiff’s sister and the time' the burial would occur. The telegram was received by the' defendant at 5 :30 a. m. and was not delivered, a few miles away, till 1 p. m.
The evidence is, -that Mr. Rogers went to defendant’s office and directed the agent to send the message' to "John TIoller and wife,'” and the operator said: “I will write it down and send it as soon as I can get the irires.”
*344The jury found on the issues submitted: ■ 1. That the defendant negligently failed to deliver the telegram alleged in the complaint. 2. That the sender made known to the operator, at the time the telegram was given in to be sent, . that the deceased and John Holler’s wife were sisters. 3. That if the telegram had been delivered without delay, the feme plaintiff, Maggie, would have attended her sister’s funeral. 4. That the feme plaintiff was entitled to recover $500.00.
The general rule is, that messages of sickness or death need not disclose the relationship of the parties, the nature of the message being notice to the company of the necessity for prompt delivery. 2 Joyce Electricity, sec 804, and many cases cited, among them, Lyne v. Tel. Co., 123 N. C., 129; Sherrill v. Tel. Co., 109 N. C., 528; Laudie v. Tel. Co., 124 N. C., 528; Meadows v. Tel., 132 N. C., 40; Bright v. Tel. Co., 132 N. C., 317; Hunter v. Tel. Co., 135 N. C., 458. This Court has held that, if the company desires to know the relationship, the duty is on it to inquire. 2 Joyce Elec., sec. 805; Bennett v. Tel. Co., 128 N. C., 103. But here the jury find as a fact that the defendant was informed of the relationship, and therefore knew who was the beneficiary of the message, even if the operator had not been told to send the message to “John Holler and wife.”
Having received the message, orally, without demur, and taken the sender’s money for the service, the defendant was bound to execute the contract. Tt was told that feme plaintiff was one of the sendees. 'Eor brevity, or by negligence, it failed to put her name in the telegram. It knew, independently, the relationship, and therefore that feme plaintiff was the beneficiary of the contract. It negligently delayed 8% hours to get a death message a distance of 16 miles, with no relay point between. The message could have been conveyed by an ox cart in less time.
The evidence brings the case within Cranford v. Tel. Co., *345138 N. C., 162, for that holds that it is sufficient if there are facts and circumstances to give the defendant notice that the plaintiff was cither (1) the sendee, or (2) that the message was sent for her benefit. ITere there is direct evidence and finding by the jury of both facts.
The jury, having found that the company was notified that the feme plaintiff was sister to the deceased, knew that she was the beneficiary of the message (independently of the sender’s direction to send to “John Holler and wife”), and hence Helms v. Tel. Co., 143 N. C., 386, does not apply.
Tt is impossible to see how the sender could do more than to tell the operator to send the message to John Holler and wife, giving notice that said wife was sister to the deceased; for how could the defendant have been more negligent than here, for the operator said, “I will write it down and send it,” and then was negligent both by leaving out the words “and wife” and, further, in not starting the telegram for 8% hours, for the distance being only 16 miles with no relay point, its actual transmission must have been instantaneous. The public are entitled to better treatment than the defendant gave this plaintiff, and the law ought to see that they get it.