Stock telegraph company cannot discriminate.

Davis v. Electric Reporting Co. (Pa.)..

Telegraph company not bound to furnish market reports
“ tickers to 'bucket shops" for various reasons

or

stated.

Cain v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ohio)..

Smith. v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ky.)..

Sterrett v. Phila. Local Tel. Co. (Pa.).

As to obligation to furnish stock quotations, see

PAGE.

375

381

389

376

New York, &c., Co. v. Board of Trade (Ill.)...... 879, note.

Duty of telegraph companies to their customers and
the public. (See "Discrimination." See NOTE, p. 616.)

A telegraph company is not, like a common carrier, an
insurer.

Ayer v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Maine)

Elsey v. Postal Tel. Co. (N. Y.)

Fowler v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Maine)

Marr v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Tenn.)..

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Munford (Tenn.)..

601

674

607

720

751

Nor is its liability generally that of a common carrier.
Bennett v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. Y.)..

Its rights, duties and responsibilities are not those of
common carriers, of agents, bailees or servants.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Allen (Miss.).

625

Should be held to more strict responsibility than ordinary
bailees.

Elsey v. Postal Tel. Co. (N. Y.)

674

Legal status practically the same as that of public carriers
of passengers for hire; both engaged in business of
public nature; both must serve all who come; neither
liable as insurers; both liable for negligence.

Gillis v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Vt.)....

841

Clothed by State with certain privileges, in exchange for
which is bound to certain duties, one being to accept and
transmit all messages offered.

Pepper v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Tenn.).

756

It is bound to act whenever called upon, its charges being
paid or tendered.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Du Bois (Ill.). . . . .

It is liable for its own negligence.

Western Union. Tel. Co. v. Munford (Tenn.).

Liable for such damage as was direct and natural result
of negligent default, without regard to degree of negli-
gence.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Broesche (Tex.)....

Bound to only ordinary care and diligence.

Beasley v. W. U. Tel. Co. (U. S.)...........

Considerations of public policy demand that it shall be
held responsible for a very high degree of diligence.
Marr v. W. Ų. Tel. Co. (Tenn.)..

It is bound to prompt and skilful performance.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hyer (Fla.).......

Bound to employ competent and faithful agents, who will
use degree of care and diligence proportioned to delicacy
and importance of duties.

PAGE.

499

751

815

867 note.

720

484

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Longwill (New Mex.)...
Bound to make immediate delivery, or as nearly imme-
diate as practicable, upon the day of date.

638

Bliss v. B. & O. Tel. Co. (Mo.).

631

Bound to exercise care and diligence adequate to obliga-
tions it assumes, to transmit communications with ac-
curacy and dispatch.

Wolfskehl v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. Y.)......

647

Bound to have suitable instruments and competent ser-
vants and to see that the service is rendered with degree
of care and skill which peculiar nature of undertaking
requires; but not liable for want of skill or knowledge
not reasonably attainable in the art, nor for errors or
imperfections arising from causes beyond its control.
Fowler v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Me.)...

Where supreme importance of prompt and active conduct
of company in delivering telegram is manifest from
reading it, the degree of diligence required of the com-
pany is equal in importance to the emergency of the
occasion, without regard to rules and hours established'
by the company.

Brown v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Utah)...

Duty to addressee, not by contractual relation but by
reason of its public character.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Longwill (New Mex.)....

Not excused by fact that terminal office closed when mes-
sage received for transmission.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Broesche (Tex.) . . . . .
Misspelling of name of receiving office will not excuse fail-
ure to transmit.

Beasley v. W. U. Tel. Co. (U. S.)...

The following circumstances have been held not consistent
with the degree of care required:

Omission of important word.

PAGE.

638

815

867, note.

Ayer v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Maine)....

601

Substitution of "hundred " for "thousand," in transmis-
sion along a single line, instruments and wires being in
proper condition.

Marr v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Tenn.) . . . .

720

Three errors in telegram of nine word's, there being no
electrical disturbance.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crall (Kan.).

575

Failure of receiving operator to notify transmitting opera-
tor that number of words received was less than that
sent, with direct testimony to incompetency of receiving
operator.

Pegram v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. C.).

Failure to transmit within three days after delivery for
transmission.

Harkness v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Iowa).

684, 690

571

Mislaying a telegram and thereby delaying its transmis-
sion for a week.

Mowry v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. Y.).

679

Messenger going only twice to house of addressee, a phy-
sician living near terminal office.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Cooper (Tex.).

795

Message plainly written, so that it could not be mistaken
by person of ordinary eye-sight using ordinary care; yet
mistake made and twice repeated from relay stations.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Howell (Kan.)...........

Electric light and electric light companies.
Companies subject to municipal license fee, though pay-
ing State tax both upon capital stock and gross receipts.
Lancaster v. Edison Elec. Illum. Co. (Pa.) . . . . . . .

581

116

Statute construed.

Wilkesbarre Elec. Light Co. v. Wilkesbarre, &c., Co.
(Pa.)...

As to actions for personal injuries to employes and others,

66

see Injuries from electrical apparatus."

For various matters relating to the apparatus of electric
light companies and the maintenance thereof in streets,
see "Poles and wires as property,” “Poles and wires in
streets."

Electric railways and railway companies.

Injunction to restrain erection of poles, denied.

......

Mt. Adams, &c., Ry. Co. v. Winslow (Ohio)...
Injunction to restrain interference with telephone system,
(1) denied, (2) vacated.

PAGE.

879

262

(1) Cent. Un. Teleph. Co. v. Sprague Elec. Ry., &c.,
Co. (Ohio)

307

(2) East Tenn. Teleph. Co. v. Chattanooga Elec. St.
Ry. Co. (Tenn.).

353

Maintenance of poles in streets imposes no new burden.
Mt. Adams, &c., Ry. Co. v. Winslow (Ohio)...

262

Eminent domain.

Condemnation proceedings set aside for failure to comply
with statutory requirements.

N. Y. & N. J. Teleph. Co. v. State, Broome, pros.
(N. J.)

260

Held, invalid for same reason, and defect not waived by
consent of the land owner.

Winter v. N. Y. & N. J. Teleph. Co. (N. J.)...................
Proceedings held invalid, to condemn so much of a bridge
across a navigable stream, as was necessary for the
support, construction and maintenance of a telegraph
line, upon the ground that the company had not
filed its written acceptance of the provisions of the post-
roads act.

Chicago & Atchison Br. Co. v. Pac. Mut. Tel. Co.
(Kan.)

Proceedings enjoined at suit of owner of a bridge over a
navigable stream, it appearing by the petition that the
proposed use of the bridge by the telegraph company
would interfere with the opening of the draw-span.

Pac. Mut. Tel. Co. v. C. & A. Br. Co. (Kan.).............

272

274

279

For condemnation proceeding to acquire right to cross
bridge, see cases in "General Note," at p. 877.

Estoppel.

Company having, without objection, received dispatch
for transmission and pay therefor, cannot be heard to
say that person presenting telegram was not authorized
so to do by plaintiff, whose name was signed to it.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Buskirk (Ind.)

Evidence.

(See "Production of telegrams as evidence.”)

Where neither the message presented for transmission nor
that delivered can be produced, secondary evidence of the
contents of both may be given.

W. U. Tel. Co. v. Way (Ala.) .

Evidence tending to show that with proper diligence
company could have delivered telegram, properly

admitted.

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Miller (Tex.)......

As bearing on good faith, and that he acted upon dis-
patch, addressee, plaintiff, held properly allowed to
testify how he interpreted telegram as received by

him.

Akin v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Iowa)

PAGE.

515

455

781

566

For evidence of conversation by telephone, see
"General Note "

cases in

880

For use of telegrams in evidence, see cases in "Gen-
eral Note"

881

Exemplary damages.

Proper for wilful destruction of telegraph line.
International & Gt. N. R. Co. (Tex.)

Forged and fraudulent telegrams.

....

879, note.

Telegraph company liable to receiver of message forged by
its agent, sent over its line, received in usual course of
business, and acted upon in good faith, for damage sus-
tained.

McCord v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Minn.).

620

Gross negligence.

(See "Duty to customers." "Limiting lia-

bility," "Burden of proof," "Damages.")

VOL. II-57.