King v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

King v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

120 S.E. 715, 127 S.C. 259, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 295

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 29, 1923

Docket11384

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 S.E. 715 (King v. Western Union Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

King v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 120 S.E. 715, 127 S.C. 259, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 295 (S.C. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

Action for $2,500 damages, actual and punitive, for mental anguish on account of the alleged delay in the transmission of a telegram.

The telegram, announcing the hour at which the funeral of a sister of the plaintiff would be held, was received for transmission at Florence, S. C., at 9:25 p. m., Saturday, July 31, 1920, addressed to the plaintiff at Chesterfield, S. C. It, was transmitted to Chesterfield by way of Charleston, Charlotte, N. C., and Cheraw, S. C., and was received at Cheraw Sunday morning; the office being closed Saturday night. Telegrams for Chesterfield are forwarded by telephone from Cheraw. This one was so transmitted at 5 p. m. on Sunday.

At the close of the testimony the presiding Judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant -upon the ground that the message was interstate; that neither punitive damages nor damages for mental anguish could be recovered; that there was no evidence upon which a verdict of actual damages could be sustained; and that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant.

*261 Conceding that there may have been some evidence tending to show negligent transmission of the message, there was none of actual damages, and the presiding Judge’s ruling upon the matter of interstate commerce, punitive damages, and damages for mental anguish is sustained by the cases of Southern Exp. Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S., 612; 36 Sup. Ct., 410; 60 L. Ed., 825; L. R. A. 1917A, 197. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Speight, 254 U. S., 17; 41 Sup. Ct., 11; 65 L. Ed., 104. Berg v. Tel. Co., 110 S. C., 169; 96 S. E., 248. Son v. Tel. Co., 115 S. C., 520; 106 S. E., 507. Smart v. Tel. Co. (S. C.), 115 S. E., 319; and Lake Shore R. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S., 101; 13 Sup. Ct., 261; 37 Sup. Ct., 97.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

• Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Marion concur. Mr. Justice Eraser concurs in result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

Action for $2,500 damages, actual and punitive, for mental anguish on account of the alleged delay in the transmission of a telegram.

The telegram, announcing the hour at which the funeral of a sister of the plaintiff would be held, was received for transmission at Florence, S. C., at 9:25 p. m., Saturday, July 31, 1920, addressed to the plaintiff at Chesterfield, S. C. It, was transmitted to Chesterfield by way of Charleston, Charlotte, N. C., and Cheraw, S. C., and was received at Cheraw Sunday morning; the office being closed Saturday night. Telegrams for Chesterfield are forwarded by telephone from Cheraw. This one was so transmitted at 5 p. m. on Sunday.

At the close of the testimony the presiding Judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant -upon the ground that the message was interstate; that neither punitive damages nor damages for mental anguish could be recovered; that there was no evidence upon which a verdict of actual damages could be sustained; and that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant.

*261 Conceding that there may have been some evidence tending to show negligent transmission of the message, there was none of actual damages, and the presiding Judge’s ruling upon the matter of interstate commerce, punitive damages, and damages for mental anguish is sustained by the cases of Southern Exp. Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S., 612; 36 Sup. Ct., 410; 60 L. Ed., 825; L. R. A. 1917A, 197. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Speight, 254 U. S., 17; 41 Sup. Ct., 11; 65 L. Ed., 104. Berg v. Tel. Co., 110 S. C., 169; 96 S. E., 248. Son v. Tel. Co., 115 S. C., 520; 106 S. E., 507. Smart v. Tel. Co. (S. C.), 115 S. E., 319; and Lake Shore R. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S., 101; 13 Sup. Ct., 261; 37 Sup. Ct., 97.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

• Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Marion concur. Mr. Justice Eraser concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 715, 127 S.C. 259, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-western-union-telegraph-co-sc-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack