A further rule in regard to telegrams is established by reason of the relationship be tween the parties concerned. Damages may be recovered for the delay or negligent trans mission of a telegram, notifying the sendee of the serious illness of a near relative; Meadows v. Telegraph Co., 132 N. C. 40, 43 S. E. 512 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hollingsworth, 83 Ark. 39, 102 S. W. 681, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 497, 119 Am. St. Rep. 105, 13 Ann. Cas. 397 ; causing distress by falsely alleging the death of receiver's moth er ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hines, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 315, 54 S. W. 627; where a mother notifies her husband that their child has been sent to a pest house ; Thur man v. Telegraph Co., 127 Ky. 137, 105 S. W. 155, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 497.
But recovery was denied: Where the tele gram announced to a brother-in-law the death of the sender's husband; Cashion v. Telegraph Co., 123 N. C. 267, 31 S. E. 493; where there is nothing on the face of the telegram to apprise the company that a claim will result because a father is deprived of the services of a doctor for his sick son as a result of its negligence ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Reid, 120 Ky. 231, 85 S. W. 1171, 70 L. R. A. 289 ; where one is prevented from attending the funeral of his fiancée; Randall v. Telegraph Co., 139 Ky. 373, 107 S. W. 235, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 859, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 277, 139 Am. St. Rep. 477.
Mental suffering will not be presumed where one is deprived of the opportunity to attend his first cousin's funeral ; Johnson v. Telegraph Co., 81 S. C. 235, 62 S. E. 244, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1002, 128 Am. St. Rep. 905; or the funeral of a son's wife ; Foreman v. Telegraph Co., 141 Ia. 32, 116 N. W. 724, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 374. And evidence is not admissible to prove that the sendee is a phy sician, where he is prevented from attend ing his mother's death-bed; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Williams, 129 Ky. 515, 112 S. W. 651, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 409.
An undisclosed principal cannot recover for mental suffering caused by delay in trans mitting a telegram, although both the sender and sendee are his agents ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Potts, 120 Tenn. 37, 113 S. W. 789, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 479, 127 Am. St. Rep. 991; nor can one for whose benefit the telegram is sent and who pays the charges ; Helms v. Telegraph Co., 143 N. C. 386, 55 S. E. 831, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 249, 118 Am. St. Rep. 811, 10 Ann. Cas. 643.
Damages for mental suffering can be re covered in the state of delivery under a stat ute subjecting telegraph companies to such liability for delay in delivering telegrams, although the telegram was sent from a state where such damages are not allowed ; • Gray v. Telegraph Co., 108 Tenn. 39, 64 S. W. 1063, 56 L. It. A. 301, 91 Am. St. Rep. 706 ; Gentle v. Telegraph Co., 82 Ark. 96, 100 S. W. 742 ; contra, Johnson v. Telegraph Co., 144 N. C. 410, 57 S. E. 122, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 256, 119 Am. St. Rep. 961, where it was held that the law of the state where the telegram is pre sented for transmission governs.
The federal courts deny the right to re cover damages in such cases ; Chase v. Tele graph Co., 44 Fed. 554, 10 L. R. A. 464; Ty ler v. Telegraph Co., 54 Fed. 634 ; Kester v. Telegraph Co., 55 Fed. 603 ; Gahan v. Tele
graph Co., 59 Fed. 433 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wood, 57 Fed. 471, 6 C. d. A. 432, 21 L. R. A. 706, where Pardee, J., after discus sing the authorities,. holds that the weight is against it ; and where the mental suffering complained of was not the proximate cause of the injury, this was said to render it un necessary to consider whether, under a stat ute giving a right of action for refusal or delay of a telegram, it was held a proper element of damages; Stafford v. Telegraph Co., 73 Fed. 273 ; Stansell v. Telegraph Co., 107 Fed. 668 ; Southern Pac. Co. v. Hetzer, 135 Fed. 272, 68 C. C. A. 26, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 288.
It was early settled that substantial dam ages might be recovered in a class of actions of tort where the only injury suffered is men tal, such as cases: Of assault without physi cal contact ; 3 C. & P. 373 ; Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry., 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 39 ; for false imprisonment, where the plain tiff has not been touched by the defendant ; 6 C. & P. 774 ; 4 Bing. N. C. 212 ; Hawk v. Ridgway, 33 Ill. 473 ; for the mutilation of a husband's body 'by dissection ; Larson v. Chase, 47 Minn. 307, 50 N. W. 238, 14 L. R. A. 85, 28 Am. St. Rep. 370; for wrongful or wanton removal of a child's body from a bur ial lot ; Meagher v. Driscoll, 281, 96 Am. Dec. 759 ; for wrongful ejection from a train ; Shepard v. R. Co., 77 Ia. 54, 41 N. W. 564 ; for slander and libel; Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 N. Y. 54, 72 Am. Dec. 420 ; for malicious prosecution; Fisher v. Hamilton, 49 Ind. 341; where a conductor kissed a woman passenger against her will ; Craker v. R. Co., 36 Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 504; in a suit for the alienation of a husband's af fections ; Nevins v. Nevins, 68 Kan. 410, 76 Pac. 492 ; for a mother's physical injury re sulting from mental suffering caused by the mistreatment of her daughter by a railroad company's employees ; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Coopwood (Tex.) 96 S. W. 102 ; contra, Sanderson v. R. Co., 88 Minn. 162, 92 N. W. 542, 60 L. R. A. 403, 97 Am. St. Rep. 509 ; abuse of passenger by a carrier's agent ; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 84 Ark. 42, 104 S. W. 551, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 159 ; where a conductor wrongfully takes up plaintiff's commutation ticket, following a public altercation with the plaintiff, who was a passenger ; Harris v. R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 278, 72 Atl. 50 ; also where a passenger is wrongfully ejected from a railroad train ; Lindsay v. R. Co., 13 Idaho 477, 90 Pac. 984,, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 184; but U. non-commis sioned officer in the Navy, who, in uniform, is refused admission to a dance hall on a ticket bought by him, can recover only the price of the ticket ; Buenzle v. Amusement Ass'n, 29 R. I. 23, 68 Atl. 721, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1242; a parent cannot recover dam ages for mental shock and distress because his minor children have been unlawfully ar rested on a charge of malicious mischief ; Sperier v. Ott, 116 La. 1087, 41 South. 323, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 518, 114 Am. St. Rep. 587 ; and parents of a deceased child are not en titled to damages for mental pain caused by the mutilation of the dead body of the child ; Long v. R. Co., 15 Okl. 512, 86 Pac. 289, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 883, 6 Ann. Cas. 1005.