• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/254/17.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. SPEIGHT , 254 U.S. 17 (1920)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. SPEIGHT , 254 U.S. 17 (1920)

    254 U.S. 17

    WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
    v.
    SPEIGHT.
    No. 241.

    Argued Oct. 12, 1920.
    Decided Oct. 25, 1920.

    Messrs. Rush Taggart, of New York City, Charles W. Tillett, of Charlotte, N. C., and Francis R. Stark, of New York City, for petitioner.

    Mr. Murray Allen, of Raleign, N. C., for respondent.

    Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This is a suit brought in a state court by the respondent against the petitioner, the Telegraph Company, to recover [254 U.S. 17, 18]   for mental suffering caused by a mistake in delivering a telegraphic message. The message handed to the defendant was 'Father died this morning. Funeral tomorrow, 10:10 a. m.,' and was dated January 24. As delivered to the plaintiff on January 24 it was dated January 23 and thus caused her to fail to attend the funeral which otherwise she would have done. The message was from Greenville, North Carolina, to Rosemary in the same State and was transmitted from Greenville through Richmond, Virginia, and Norfolk, to Roanoke Rapids, the delivery point for Rosemary. This seems to have been the route ordinarily used by the Company for years, and the Company defends on the ground that the message was sent in interstate commerce, and that therefore a suit could not be maintained for mental suffering alone. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U.S. 612 , 36 Sup. Ct. 410, L. R. A. 1917A, 197. The jury found that the message was sent out of North Carolina into Virginia for the purpose of fraudulently evading liability under the law of North Carolina and gave the plaintiff a verdict. The presiding judge then set the verdict aside 'as a matter of law' and ordered a nonsuit. But on appeal the Supreme Court of the State set aside the nonsuit and directed that a judgment be entered on the verdict.

    We are of opinion that the judge presiding at the trial was right and that the Supreme Court was wrong. Even if there had been any duty on the part of the Telegraph Company to confine the transmission to North Carolina, it did not do so. The transmission of a message through two states is interstate commerce as a matter of fact. Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 187 U.S. 617 , 23 Sup. Ct. 214. The fact must be tested by the actual transaction. Kirmeyer v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 568, 572 , 35 S. Sup. Ct. 419.

    As the line was arranged and had been arranged for many years, ever since Roanoke Rapids had been an independent office, Richmond was the relay point from [254 U.S. 17, 19]   Greenville to the latter place. The message went through Weldon, North Carolina, and was telegraphed back from Richmond, as Weldon business also was. It would have been possible, physically, to send direct from Weldon but would have required a rearrangement of the wires and more operators. The course adopted was more convenient and less expensive for the Company and there was nothing to show motives except the facts. As things were, the message was sent in the quickest way. The court below did not rely primarily upon the finding of the jury as to the purpose of the arrangement but held that when as here the termini were in the same State the business was intrastate unless it was necessary to cross the territory of another State in order to reach the final point. This, as we have said, is not the law. It did however lay down that the burden was on the Company to show that what was done 'was not done to evade the jurisdiction of the State.' If the motive were material, as to which we express no opinion, this again is a mistake. The burden was on the plaintiff to make out her case. Moreover the motive would not have made the business intrastate. If the mode of transmission adopted had been unreasonable as against the plaintiff, a different question would arise, but in that case the liability, if it existed, would not be a liability for an intrastate transaction that never took place but for the unwarranted conduct and the resulting loss.

    Judgment reversed.

    Mr. Justice PITNEY concurs in the result.

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw