PACK

of which it had no notice. Statement that it was impor-
tant and request to rush it not sufficient.

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

880, nots.

Miscellaneous questions of pleading, evidence, damages, &c.
Mondon v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ga.)..

874, note.

Electrical appliances as property. (See NOTES, pp. 653, 667.)
Electric light appliances held personal property for pur-
poses of taxation.

Newport Illuminating Co. v. Newport Assessors (R. L.)

Held trade fixtures, removable by tenant during his term.
Liebe v. Nicolai (Oregon)....

Electric light and electric light companies,
Appliances impose new servitude in streets.

Palmer v. Larchmont Elec. Co. (N. Y.)...

007, note

Companies not subject to license fee on poles or wires used
exclusively for purpose of lighting streets under contract
with city. Contra, as to poles or wires not so exclusively
used.

Newcastle v. Elec. Co. (Pa.). . . . . . .

Company which has availed itself of municipal permission"
to occupy highway, upon express agreement to furnish
light to municipality, cannot lawfully insist on maintain-
ing structures after refusal to perform its contract.
Hempstead v. Ball Elec. Lt. Co. (N. Y.).................

Company having contract for electric lighting of city
streets has paramount right o er earlier company doing
only private lighting, and in case of interference latter
must yield.

Terre Haute Elec. Lt. & P. Co. v. Citizen's Elec. Lt.

128

87

36

& P. Co. (Ind.)..

193

Dynamos, switchboards, poles and wires, held personal
rather than real property for purposes of taxation.

Newport Illuminating Uo. v. Newport Assessors (R. I.)
Production is manufacture within meaning of statute ex-
empting manufacturing corporation from taxation on
capital stock.

.......

People v. Campbell (No. 1) (N. Y.)
Company not engaged in manufacturing industry so as to
be exempt from taxation.

Frederick Elec. Lt. & Power Co. v. Mayor, &c. of
Frederick City (Md.).....

Company owning and leasing patents relating to electricity,
but itself running no wires and furnishing no electrio
light, not manufacturing corporation so as to be exempt
from taxation on its capital stock.

People v. Campbell (No. 2) (N. Y.)

.....

Dynamos and other electrical machinery placed by tenant
in leased buckling to furnish power for electric lighting
system, held trade fixtures removable by tenant during
his term.

667, note.

Municipal corporation authorized by virtue of general police
power to build electric lighting plant.

Ellinwood v. Reedsbargh (Wis.) ...

678, note.

Legislature has power to authorize municipal corporations
to manufacture and supply electricity for lighting, both
public and private.

Jacksonville Elec. Lt. Co. v. Jacksonville (Fla.) ...

.....

Municipal corporation held empowered neither by charter
nor by general statute to erect and maintain electric
light plant to light its streets.

State, Howell Pros. v. Milville (N. J.).....................

668

678, note.

(See

Electric railways and electric railway companies.
also, "Duty to Passengers," "Duty to Travelers," "Duty of Pas-
sengers," "Duty of Travelers.")

Trolley system imposes additional servitude on land owned
in fee by abutting owner,

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

Injunction against construction refused against abutting
owner in city where fee of streets is in city in trust for
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.).......

148

151, note.

Preliminary injunction restraining construction held prop-
erly vacated, there being doubt about its being on plain-
tiff's land.

Thouron v. Schuylkill Elec. Ry. Co. (Pa.)....................
Restrained by injunction from using street without obtain-
ing consent of majority of abutting owners as required by
statute.

.....

PAGE

150

151, note.

Beeson v. Chicago (U. S.) .
Application of New York Railway Law to electric street
railways.

Colonial Traction Co. v. Kingston City R. Co. (N.Y.) 106, note.

Cannot be built within local boundaries of municipality
under municipal consent to line connecting that with
other municipalities.

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Turtle Creek Valley Elec. Ry.
Co. (Pa.).

106, note.

Cannot under statute permitting it to cross steam railways
at grade make such crossing, without consent of steam
railway company, by viaduct overhead or at grade other
than at established street or highway.

Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Harrisburg, &c. Ry.
Co. (Pa.)...

In fixing compensation to be paid by electric street railway
company for use of track of cable railway, held proper to
base rental upon actual cost of cable road, including under
ground conduit, though this was useless to the trolley
company, and its cost was three-fourths cost of cable road.
Grand Avenue Ry. Co. v. People's Ry. Co. (Mo.).....
Speed of trolley cars may be regulated by municipal ordi-

nance.

State, Cape May, &c. Co. Pros. v. Cape May (N. J.)..
Company may be compelled by municipal ordinance to stop
cars before crossing streets.

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

To provide conductors for cars.

State, ex. rel. Columbia, &c., Co. v. Sloan (S. C.). .

To use fenders on cars.

187

99

42

45

57

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

May be prohibited by municipal ordinance from placing salt
on tracks.

State, Consol. Traction Co Pros. v Elizabeth (N.J.)

49

106, note.

Jurisdiction of county court in action for penalty for run-
ning electric cars beyond given rate of speed in city streets.
Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City & Newton R. Co.

.......

PAGE

107, note.

(N. Y.) ...
Company has right to a 'y usual and ordinary appliances
for repairing highways for reasonable time, superior to
right of travelers in streets.

Potter v. Scranton Traction Co. (Pa.).....

Electric shock. (See, "Duty of Electrical Companies to Main-
tain Safe Appliances.")

Eminent domain.

Telephone company has right of.

95

Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Morgan's, &c. Co. (La.)..............

183

Employes of electrical companies, injuries to. (See “Duty
of Electrical Companies to Employes.")

Evidence.

Of value of land as it would have been if poles not erected,
cannot be received in action for damages to abutting
owner by reason of telephone line in street.

Blashfield v. Empire State Teleph. & Tel. Co. (N. Y.)

In action based on injuries by electric shock from telephone
wire, competent to show custom of telephone companies
as to manner of detecting defects and irregularities in
their line.

Testimony that line overcharged with electricity on several
occasions prior to accident held admissible.
Declarations of secretary of telephone company, relative to
maintaining and removing dead wire which for long time
had been in close proximity to electric light wire, held
inadmissible.

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

Proper to prove, in action for damages for injury to passen-
ger by breaking of trolley wire, for purpose of charging
company with notice of its unsafe condition, that same
wire had broken frequently during same season.

Richmond Railway & Elec. Co. v. Bowles (Va.)......

In action for death of employe of electric light company
by shock from defective insulation, held proper to prove

126

307

449

condition of insulation of wires three days after accident,
it appearing that condition remained unchanged; but
improper to show that no accident had happened before
on same wires without proving that their condition re-
remained unchanged.

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

In action based on collision of trolley car with vehicle, ordi-
nance showing rate of speed permitted is competent.
Hall v. Ogden City St. Ry. Co. (Utah)..

Exclusive privilege. (See “Discrimination.")

Free delivery limit.

Company bound to deliver beyond, if solvent sender agree
to pay additional charges.

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

PAGE

357

598

879, note.

If sender contract for special messenger to deliver to ad-
dresee four miles from terminal office, and guarantee pay-
ment, company bound to use reasonable diligence to de-
liver.

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

879, note.

If sender of telegram, knowing addressee lives without free
delivery limit, makes no provision for special delivery,
company not liable for failure to deliver, unless operator
at transmitting office waived prepayment or guaranty.
If agent at terminal office fails to comply with rule of com-
pany requiring him to wire back for prepayment or guar.
anty, and undertakes to have telegram delivered beyond
free delivery limit, trusting to voluntary payment by ad-
dressee, he must deliver it with reasonable promptness.

Whittemore v. W. U. Tel. Co. (U. S.)............................ 881, note.

Liable for failure to deliver telegram addressed to student
of medical college situate just beyond free delivery limit.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Teague (Tex.)................... 879, note.

Company having received message for delivery at place
three miles from an office, but where agent at initial
office supposed the company had an office, held liable
for failure to deliver.

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

...

879, note.

Circumstances under which company not excusable for fail-
ure to deliver beyond.

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

877, note.