Sec. 59. In Case Of Telegraph Companies
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 59. In Case Of Telegraph Companies
The liability of a telegraph company for a wrongful act which is both a violation of its public duty and a breach of its contract, may be treated as a tort liability.1 Failure to transmit and deliver messages is a violation of public duty;2 and although such duty may originate in contract, the injured party may recover punitive damages upon the theory of tort if the evidence entitles him thereto.3 If no contract exists between the telegraph company and the injured party, and no contract has been entered into for his benefit, his right of action is in tort and not in contract.4 One who is injured by the receipt and transmission of a forged telegram by a telegraph company may maintain an action in tort, but he can not treat the wrong as a breach of contract.5
5 McGrath v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 121 Minn. 258, L. R. A. 1915D, 644,141 N. W. 164; Central, of Georgia, Ry. Co. v. Chicago Portrait Co., 122 Ga, 11, 106 Am. St. Rep. 87, 49 S. E. 727; Erie Railroad Co. v. Steinberg, 94 0. S. 189, L. R. A. 1917B, 787, 113 N. E. 814.
6 Alabama. Southern Ry. v. Harris, - Ala. - , 80 So. 101.
Arkansas. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. Pfeifer, 90 Ark. 524, 22 L. R. A.(N.S.) 1107, 119 S. W. 642.
Kansas. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Schriver, 72 Kan. 550, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1056. 84 Ac. 119.
Michigan. Ortner v. Michigan Central Ry., - Mich. - , 167 N. W. 851 (count in assumpsit and count in tort).
Ohio. Railroad v. O'Donnell, 49 O. S. 489, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579 [sub nomine, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. O'Donnell, 21 L. R. A. 117, 32 N. E. 476].
Oklahoma. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. Dunham, 36 Okla. 724, 129 Ac. 862.
7 Zabron v. Cunard S. S. Co., 151 la. 345, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 751, 131 N. W. 18.
8 Gillespie v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 347, 102 Am. St. Rep. 503, 70 N. E. 857.
• Gilbert Bros. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 156 la. 440, 136 N. W. 911; Denman v. Chicago, Baltimore & Quincy Ry. Co., 52 Neb. 140, 71 N. W. 967.
10 Chudnovski v. Eckels, 232 111. 312, 83 N. E. 846.
11 Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northern Ry., 110 Minn. 347, 125 N. W. 897.
12 Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry., 110 Minn. 347, 125 N. W. 897.
13 National Bank v. Southern Ry., 107 S. Car. 28, 91 S. E. 972.
1Pacific Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Schriver, 141 Fed. 538, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 678; Green v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 136 N. Car. 489, 103 Am. St. Rep. 955, 49 S. E. 165) Reaves v. Western Union Telegraph Co., - S. Car. - , 96 S. E. 295.
Continue to:
My Books
