INDEX

Abutting owner, rights of, as to use of highway for elec-
trical purposes. (See NOTE, p. 151.)

In rural highway, fee to center of which is in abutting
owner, erection of telegraph poles and wires imposes new
servitude, for which compensation must be made.
Under circumstances of given case, only nominal compensa-
tion allowed.

Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Bruen (N. Y.)........................
In city streets, maintenance of telephone appliances under
legislative and municipal consent does not constitute new
easement for which abutting owner is entitled to compen-
sation.

Compensation to, not prerequisite to placing of telephone
poles under ordinance making company "liable for all
damages caused to public or private property by reason of
said privilege."

Incurs no liability in cutting down telephone pole in street
in front of his property, placed there without compliance
with city ordinance requiring written application designat-
ing number, size and position of poles and payment of
license fee.

York Telephone Company v. Keesey (Pa.)

.......

In action for damages by reason of constructing telephone
line in street, evidence of value of land as it would have
been if poles not erected, cannot be received.

Blashfield v. Empire State Teleph. & Tel. Co. (N. Y.).
Electric light appliances, in rural highway, impose no new
servitude.

PAGE

120

107

120

Palmer v. Larchmont Elec. Co. (N. Y.)......
Electric street railway in city street imposes new burden
and abutter owning fee to center of street entitled to com-
pensation.

12

Clark v. Middletown-Goshen Traction Co. (N. Y.)....

148

Contra.

State, Roebling Pros. v. Trenton (N. J.).......
Not entitled to injunction restraining laying of electric
street railway in street, fee of which is in city in trust for

137

public use, on ground that it will impair his easement of
ingress and egress, since he has remedy in damages.
Haskell v. Denver Tramway Co. (Col.)......

PAGE

151,

note.

Entitled to injunction restraining use of street by street
railway in default of consent of majority of frontage of
abutting owners, required by statute.

Beeson v. Chicago (U. S.)..............

151, note.

Ownership of trees by, subordinate to rights, powers and
duties of municipal authorities in protection, promotion
and establishment of public uses.

Cannot maintain trespass for cutting trees by telephone
company by direction of municipal authorities; this irre-
spective of question whether or not telephone service con-
stitutes additional burden; and assuming that abutting
owner owns fee of land to center of street. If such cut-
ting were unnecessary, action would be in case for
damages.

Southern Bell Telephone Co. v. Francis (Ala.)........ ... ... ... ....

Cutting of trees of, by telephone company cannot be author-
ized by board of town selectmen.

Bradley v. Southern New England Telephone Co.
(Conn.)

Question of evidence in action against telegraph company
for statutnry penalty for knowingly and wilfully cutting
trees.

Postal Telegrrph Cable Co. v. Lenoir (Ala.) ............

....

160

153

167, note.

Lineman of telegraph company cannot be convicted of mal-
icious mischief for cutting shade trees if done in line of his
duty, for purpose of relieving wires, and without malice.
Commonwealth v. Smith (Pa.)

167, note.

Agency.

Secretary of telephone company not its agent in sense that
company bound by his damaging admissions.

East Tenneseee Telephone Co. v. Simms' Admr. (Ky.)

297

Telegraph company not agent of sender of dispatch, so that
receiver can hold him to terms as erroneously transmitted.
Shingleur v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Miss.)....

783

Acts of agents held to operate as waiver of stipulation in
telegraph blank.

Will v. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (N. Y.)

807

Burden of proof.

Proof that message not transmitted as received for trans-
mission raises presumption of negligence of telegraph
company.

Reed v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Mo.)......

PAGE

791

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

880, note.

California telegraph statute.

Complaint held sufficient for recovery of nominal damages.
Stafford v. W. U. Tel. Co. (U. S.)..........................

Certiorari.

To review ordinance.

881, note.

State, Cape May, &c. Co. Pros. v. Cape May (N. J.)..

42

Cape May, &c. R. Co. v. Cape May (N. J.).
State, Marshall Pros. v. Bayonne (N. J.).
State, Roebling Pros. v. Trenton Pass. R. Co. (N. J.) .

45

....

118

13

To review assessment.

653

656

899

612, note.

People ex rel. Edison Elec. Lt. Co. v. Campbell (N. Y.)

Cipher and unintelligible dispatches. (See "Damages.")

Comparative negligence.

66

Recognized only in Georgia, Illinois and Tennessee and per-
haps a few other States, not including Colorado.
Denver Tramway Co. v. Reid (Col.)

Not in Arkansas.

Johnson v. Stewart (Ark.)...

Condemnation. (See "Eminent Domain.")

Constitutional law.

Indiana statute of 1893, requiring telegraph companies to
pay tax upon property within State valued at such pro-
portion of whole value of its capital stock as length of
lines within State bears to length of lines everywhere,
deducting sum equal to value of real estate and machinery
subject to local taxation within State, is constitutional
and valid, notwithstanding that nothing is in terms
directed to be deducted from valuation, either for value
of franchises from United States or for value of real
estate and machinery situated and taxed in other States.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart (U. S.).......

621

"Nichols Law" of Ohio providing for assessment of prop-
erty of telegraph, telephone and express companies by
state board of appraisers is not invalid under Federal
Constitution.

Sanford v. Poe (U. S.)........................

PAGE

637, note,

Provision of Indiana Act of March 6, 1893, that if telegraph
company refuse to pay tax, judgment in action by attorney-
general shall include penalty of fifty per cent. of amount
of tax is not invalid.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. State (Ind.).

......

637, note,

New Jersey statute authorizing street railroad companies to
use electric motors instead of horses, provided consent of
municipal authorities be first obtained, and empowering
municipal authorities to authorize use and prescribe loca-
tion of poles and wires, held not unconstitutional as
taking private property for public use without compensa-
tion.

State, Roebling Pros. v. Trenton Pass. R. Co. (N. J.)..
Statute which prescribes duties of both telegraph companies
and telephone companies as common carriers not uncon-
stitutional as embracing more than one subject.

Central Union Teleph. Co. v. Fehring (Ind.)......

187

694

Statutes prescribing penalties for negligence of telegraph
companies not repugnant to interstate commerce pro-
visions of Federal Constitution.

858

......

853

Western Union Tel. Co. v. James (U. S.)
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Powell (Va.).....

Contract. (See "Discrimination.")

Contributory negligence. (See also "Duty of Passengers ;”
"Duty of Travelers.")

Act of policeman on duty, in attempting to push aside with
his mace broken wire hanging in dangerous proximity to
street crossing and emitting sparks, held not, per se.

Dillon v. Allegheny County Light Co. (Pa.)... . . . . . . . .
To walk into live electric wire from which sparks are pro-
ceeding, held to be.

243

301, nota.

Cook v. Wilmington City Elec. Co. (Del.).......
Failure to wear rubber gloves while trimming electric lamps
in daytime is not.

Harroun v. Brush Elec. Light Co. (N. Y.)...........

Of lineman injured by shock communicated to him from

857

trolley wire by uninsulated span wire, question held
proper for jury.

McAdam v. Central Railway & Elec. Co. (Conn.) ...

....

Question proper for jury in case where conductor of trolley
car killed by contact with trolley post.

Pierce v. Camden, &c. Ry. Co. (N. J.)...................

......

Beneficiary of telegram bound to reasonable diligence, on
learning of error, &c., to reduce loss.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hart (Ill.).

PAGE

848

877

875, note.

66

66

66

66 v. Harper (Tex.).......

880, note.

Damages and measure of damages for error, &c., in trans-
mission of telegrams.

For delay of cipher dispatch, of whose importance it has no
notice, company liable only to extent of sum paid for
transmission.

Fergusson Brothers v. Anglo-American Tel. Co. (Pa).
Company not liable for delay of cipher message with nature
of which it had no notice. Statement that it was import-
ant and request to rush it not sufficient.

Houston, &c. Tel. Co. v. Davidson (Tex.).......

819

880, note.

Telegram in words "Kammerer renews orders," followed by
further words in cipher, with other circumstances, held to
sufficiently indicate importance of prompt delivery to war-
rant recovery of actual damages.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nagle & Winn (Tex.).....
Telegram in words "Come at once. Bring father to secure
my bond," held, with other circumstances, sufficient notice
of importance of telegram to warrant verdict awarding
damages for injury due to detention in jail.

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

842

847

Where result of error in transmission of telegram is loss on
sale of real estate, measure of damages against company
is amount of such loss.

791

Reed v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Mo.)..

Loss of prospective profits held proper element of damages.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nagle & Winn (Tex.) ..

Gains prevented are an element.

Fairley v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Miss.).

....

842

876, note.

$450 not excessive for failure to deliver telegram announcing

death of child.

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

877, note.