Hughes v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
AotioN for damages, tried at Fall Term, 1893, of Craven Superior Court, before Bynum, J. The plaintiff proved that he lived in the city of Newbern, North Carolina, and had for eighteen months prior to the time of receiving the telegraphic dispatch as set forth in the complaint, t-o-wit, the 21st day of April, 1892, been engaged in buying and selling stocks on the New York market; that he carried on his correspondence in regard thereto over the telegraphic lines of the…
Read the full summary
AotioN for damages, tried at Fall Term, 1893, of Craven Superior Court, before Bynum, J. The plaintiff proved that he lived in the city of Newbern, North Carolina, and had for eighteen months prior to the time of receiving the telegraphic dispatch as set forth in the complaint, t-o-wit, the 21st day of April, 1892, been engaged in buying and selling stocks on the New York market; that he carried on his correspondence in regard thereto over the telegraphic lines of the defendant; and that for about a year before and up to the said date, April 21, 1892, he received from the defendant the…
1Opinion of the CourtBurwell, J.
J.The plaintiff’s allegation is to the effect that the defendant made a mistake in the transmission of a telegram directed to him and relating to the stock of the. American Cotton Oil Company. He says that if the message had been delivered to him as his correspondent wrote it he would not have sold five hundred shares of that stock which he then owned, but that being misled and deceived by the false information thus negligently furnished him by the defendant, he did sell those shares of stock.
If, because of defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff had disposed of his property at less than its…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Pegram v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Prussian Nat. Ins. v. LawrenceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1915