Georgia telegraph statute.

Not repugnant to interstate commerce provisions of Federal
constitution.

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

Action for penalty held abated by repeal of statute pending
action.

Woodburn v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ga.)

On account of repeal, no opinion filed.
Meadors v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ga.) ..

PAGE

858

874, note.

874, note.

Gross negligence. (See "Duty to Customers," "Limiting Liability.”)

Half rate or night messages. (See "Limiting Liability.")

Injunction.

Temporary, restraining city from enforcing ordinance
revoking permission to maintain telephone line in street,
granted.

Southern Bell Teleph. &c. Co. v. Richmond (U. S.)....
Restraining abutting owner from interfering with telephone
pole, dissolved conditionally.

York Telephone Co. v. Keesey (Pa.).......
Abutting owner held entitled to, 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.).......

1

107

151, note.

Preliminary to prevent construction of electric street rail-
way held properly vacated, there being doubt as to rail-
way being on plaintiff's land.

Thouron v. Schuylkill Elec. Ry. Co. (Pa.). ....

Refused to abutting owner claiming impairment of ease-
ment of ingress and egress, he having remedy in damages,
fee of street being in city in trust for use of public.
Haskell v. Denver Tramway Co. (Col.)......

150

151, note.

Denied to electric light company earliest in use of streets, but
doing only private lighting, to restrain interference by
company doing public lighting under contract.

Terre Haute Elec. Lt. & P. Co. v. Citizens' Elec. Lt.
& P. Co. (Ind.)

Temporary at suit of mortgagee of grantee of franchise to
use streets for electric lighting purposes, to restrain muni-
cipality, itself owning rival electric lighting plant, from
enforcing ordinance repealing franchise, granted.
Levis v. Newton (U. S.)...

VOL VI-58.

193

13

Proper, to prevent unauthorized construction of viaduct for
electric street railway over steam railway.

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

Restraining collection of tax upon telegraph company,
denied.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart (U. S.)...............................
Same as to electric light company.

Frederick Elec. Lt. &c. Co. v. Frederick City (Md.)..
Restraining city from constructing electric light plant,
denied.

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

Injuries from wrongful or negligent use of electrical ap-
pliances. (See "Duty," &c., six titles.)

Interference of electrical currents; induction and conduc-
tion.

As between two electric light companies, each having per-
mission to use streets, and each furnishing light to citizens,
the one having contract for public lighting, though latest
in occupation of streets, has paramount right, and the
other must yield in case of interference.

Terre Haute Elec. Lt. & P. Co. v. Citizens' Elec. Lt.
& P. Co. (Ind.)...

On question of, held that telegraph company having ac-
cepted benefits of post-roads act of Congress has superior
right to electric light company, later in occupancy of

streets.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles Electric Co.
(U. S.)....

PAGE

187

621

644

668

193

202

Law of place.

Action for breach of contract for transmission of telegram,
made and to be partly performed in Iowa, governed by
laws of that State, though action brought in Missouri.
Reed v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Mo.) ...

791

Resident of Indian Territory may sue in Texas court for
breach of duty of foreign telegraph company in respect to
telegram delivered to company in Texas for 'transmis-
sion to plaintiff in Indian Territory.

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

License fee. (See "Municipal Control.")

879

Limiting liability of telegraph companies by contract,
for damages caused by error, delay, etc., in transmis-
sion and delivery of messages. (See NOTE, p. 802.)

Prohibited by Kentucky constitution.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eubank & Russell (Ky.)..

Companies cannot contract for exemption from conse-
quences of their own negligence.

PAGE

770

Companies cannot contract for exemption from conse
quences of gross negligence.

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

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

Unrepeated message stipulation held valid.

791

803

807

E. P. Cowen Lumber Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Mo.)
Jarboe v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Mo.)...

876, note.

876, note.

Does not relieve company from liability for consequences of
its own negligence.

Mitchell v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Tex.)..

877, note.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nagle & Winn (Tex.)..........

842

Unrepeated message stipulation held invalid.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crawford (Ala.).

...

874, note.

Company must prove that sender signed blank or author-
ized its signature.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Powell (Va.)......

Stipulation binds sender using blank, although he did not
read it.

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

Neither sender nor addressee can be held bound by stipula-
tion in blank without some evidence of knowledge thereof.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Lycan (Ill.)..... ...

853

803

875, note.

Sender of message delivering same to agent of company
away from telegraph office, written on plain paper, not
bound by stipulation on blank to which paper subse-
quently attached by agent, exempting company from lia-
bility on messages until presented to and accepted at
transmitting office.

Such stipulation not available as defence, when injury
would have been avoided if transmission had been
promptly made after message reached office.

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

Limiting time to present claims for damages or penalty on
account of delay, &c., in transmission of telegrams.

Prohibited by Kentucky constitution.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eubank & Russell (Ky.)..

Stipulation held reasonable and valid.

Albers v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Iowa.)
Kirby v. W. U. Tel. Co. (S. D.)..

Lewis v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. C.).............
Russell v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Kan.).

Webbe v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ill.)..

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Beck (Ill.).....

PAGE

770

763

824

876, note.

766

875, note.

875, note.

835

875, note.

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

Sender bound by conditions, though he had never read them.
Webbe v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ill.). . . .

Stipulation not waived by verbal statement made to opera-
tors.

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

Notice claiming for damages to wife only, not effective as to
suit by husband.

Swain v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Tex.) ..

763

878, note.

Mental distress, as an element of damages in telegraph
(See also, "Damages.")

cases.

Mental distress alone held to warrant recovery, at suit of
sender.

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

Same at suit of addressee.

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

756

876, note.

Alone will not warrant recovery, at suit of addressee.
Morton v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ohio).

818

Will not warrant recovery although physical injury result
therefrom.

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

812

Telegram announcing death of addressee's father affords

sufficient notice of mental distress as probable result of
failure to deliver.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Randles (Tex.)
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith (Tex.)..

ᏢᎪᏩᎬ .

......

878, note.
877, note.

Damages to addressee for mental distress due to failure to
deliver telegram by which he was prevented from visiting
his dying step-father not allowed in absence of notice of
affectionate relations between them.

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

878, note.

Evidence of company's knowledge of affectionate relations
insufficient to authorize damages for mental distress.

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

879, note.

Telegram in words "Cannot come to-day. Will come to-
morrow," not sufficient notice to telegraph company that
mental distress will be probable result of failure to deliver.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bryant (Ind.)....

756

Circumstances held not to warrant recovery of damages for.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Birchfield (Tex.).........880, note.

Evidence held inadmissible on issue of.

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

878, note.

Husband not entitled to recover for wife's mental anguish
alone.

Johnson v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Tex.)......

879, note.

Michigan telegraph statute.

Imposing penalty for failure to transmit messages
with impartiality and good faith, does not attach in
case where default due wholly to oversight and accident.
Weaver v. Grand Rapids, &c. R. Co. (Mich.)......

Municipal control of electrical appliances in highways,
and license fee. (See NOTE, p. 106.)

Statute granting franchise to electrical company held sub-
ject to rights of municipal authorities for public benefit.
Edison Elec. Illum. Co. v. Hooper (Md.)........

Ordinance granting franchise to maintain electric lighting
apparatus in streets cannot be changed 'or repealed by
municipal authorities, in absence of constitutional or
statutory permission, or right reserved in ordinance.

Levis v. Newton (U. S.)..

Ordinance repealing ordinance granting permission to main-

779

13