Restraining granting permits for poles and wires, motion to
continue refused.

Higgins v. Manhattan Elec. Lt. Co. (N. Y.) .............
Restraining transfer of subway from one company to
another, refused.

PAGE

167, note.

Manhattan Elec. Lt. Co. v. Grant (N. Y.) .......

131, note.

From making contract with new subway company and
releasing old, granted.

141, note.

Henry v. Board of Electrical Control (N. Y.)..........
Restraining subway company from removing wires unless
rent paid, order vacating affirmed.

Brush Elec. Illum. Co. v. Consol Tel., &c. Co. (N. Y.).
Restraining sheriff from collecting assessments, held properly
refused.

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

150

168, note.

Injuries from wrongful or negligent use of electrical
appliances. (See NOTE, p. 491.)

The stringing of wires by an electric lighting company so
that the wires of one circuit cross another, and so that a
slight sagging of one wire will bring the two in contact,
thus wearing off the insulation and leaving the wires bare,
and maintaining one circuit as a live one while employees
are set at work handling with bare hands the wires of the
dead circuit so crossing the wires of the live one, is plain
and inexcusable negligence.

Kraatz v. Brush Elec. Lt. Co. (Mich.)......

A horse having been killed by contact with a telephone wire
which had become broken and fallen upon an unguarded
trolley wire, held that both companies were guilty of neg-
ligence and jointly liable.

Shelton v. United Elec. Ry. Co. (Tenn.)...

491

477

Telegraph company held liable for damages due to horse
being frightened by telegraph wires which were being
removed from poles.

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

474

Telephone company held liable for injuries sustained by
placing guy wires so as to endanger the traveling public,
although in a part of the street forbidden to travel.
Wilson v. Gt. So. Teleph. & Tel. Co. (La.).

466

The mere fact of the sounding of a gong by the driver of a
street car does not constitute negligence, so as to admit a
recovery against the company of damages for injuries
caused by frightening of horses by the gong.

North Side St. Ry. Co. v. Tippins (Tex.). ...

489

Electric railway company held not liable for frightening
horses.

Cornell v. Detroit Elec. Ry. Co. (Mich.).

Electric light company held liable for injuries caused to
traveler by breaking of defective pole.

Williams v. Louisiana Elec. Lt. & Power Co. (La.)...
Complaint alleging in addition to fact of injury that same
was caused by collision of runaway horse with pole so
placed in highway that it was improbable that any but a
runaway horse would collide with it, states no cause of
action.

Roberts v. Wisconsin Teleph. Co. (Wis.)....................

Interference of electrical currents; induction and conduc-
tion. (See NOTE, p. 460.)

(In each of the following cases, application was made at
suit of a telegraph or telephone company for injunction
against electric light or electric railway company.)
Injunction at suit of telegraph company held properly
granted: (1) Restraining an electric light and power com-
pany from stringing its wires above those of the plaintiff
nearer than eight feet from them; and (2) compelling it to
place a guard under its wires already strung, to prevent
their falling, in case they should break or sag, upon the
telegraph wires, on the ground of threatened danger to
the plaintiff's instruments and employees, and delay of its
service.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Guernsey & Scudder Elec.
Lt. Co. (Mo.)........

Application denied, it appearing that there was no probable
danger from induction, and that the contemplated dangers
from contact, leakage or otherwise, were uncertain; in
short, there being no sufficient evidence of irreparable
injury.

Rocky Mountain Bell Teleph. Co. v. Salt Lake City
Ry. Co. (Utah)....

Injunction refused, mainly upon the ground that the elec-
tric light company, defendant, was first in occupation of
the street.

Nebraska Teleph. Co. v. York Gas & Elec. Lt. Co. (Neb.)
Injunction held improper, upon ground that as between
telephone and electric railway, the latter. being a proper
street use, has the preference and the telephone company
must protect itself.

Cincinnati Inclined Ry. Co. v. City & Sub. Tel. Asn.

(Ohio)......

East Tennessee Teleph. Co. v. Knoxville St. R. R. Co.
(Tenn.).......

Application denied, although telephone company had the
earlier license, and double trolley system would tend to
remove the trouble, it appearing that it was in the power
of the plaintiff to adopt an effective remedy, to wit, the
metallic circuit, which it had not tried. Importance was
also attached to the fact that the defendant's use was and
the plaintiff's was not within the purposes of street dedi-
cation.

Rocky Mountain Bell Teleph. Co. v. Salt Lake City
Ry. Co. (Utah)

Application denied, it appearing that the defendant was
making lawful use of its franchise, without negligence or
unnecessary disregard of plaintiff's rights; that the injury
to plaintiff was not the result of defendant's plan of con-
struction; and that plaintiff had a more effective remedy
in the metallic circuit or McCluer device than any which
was open to the defendant; also held that the plaintiff
should apply such remedy at its own expense.

Cumberland Teleph. & Tel. Co. v. United Elec. Ry. Co.
(U. S )......

Application denied, it appearing that the single trolley sys-
tem used by the railroad company was the best system
known, while the telephone company could avoid injury
to itself by adopting the metallic circuit.

Wisconsin Teleph. Co. v. Eau Claire St. Ry. (Wis.) *

It appearing that the most feasible remedy would be the use
of the metallic circuit by the plaintiff, but it being impos-
sible to determine upon the motion at whose expense the
metallic circuit should be established, ordered, that the
injunction should be continued thirty days, or until the
defendant should make certain specified stipulations.

Hudson River Teleph. Co. v. Watervliet T. & R. R.
Co. (N. Y.).....

In the same case a temporary injunction order having been
affirmed by the General Térm, the appeal therefrom to the
Court of Appeals was dismissed upon the ground that the
order was not reviewable in that court.

Two judges dissented, however, upon the ground that the
complaint set up no cause of action; and the same
thought was strongly intimated in the prevailing opinion.

PAGE.

443

400

356

408

383

387

Hudson River Teleph. Co. v. Watervliet T. & B. R.
Co. (N. Y.).......

Interstate commerce. (See "Constitutional Law.”)

License fee. (See NOTES, pp. 55, 71.)

An ordinance imposing a license fee upon a telegraph com-
pany with respect to all its business done within the State,
together with the statute permitting such ordinance, is
void.

City Council of Charleston v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
(S C)........

PAGE.

A municipal corporation cannot impose a tax upon telegraph
companies, but it is its duty to subject them to such con-
ditions, restrictions and supervision as are necessary to
the public safety; and consequently it may impose such
charges as will enable it to perform such duty without loss
to itself. If an ordinance do no more than this it is
reasonable, and therefore valid; otherwise it is not.
Accordingly held, that an ordinance imposing a charge of
$16,000, when not to exceed $3,500 was necessary for the
purpose aforesaid, imposed a tax and was void.

City of Philadelphia v. W. U. Tel. Co. (U. S.) ........

Limiting liability of telegraph companies by contract, for
damages caused by error, delay, &c., in transmission
and delivery of messages.

(For stipulations as printed in blanks, see pp. 593, 719, 725,
726.)

Liability may be limited, except as against the misconduct,
fraud, or negligence of the company.

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

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

66

66 66 v. Stevenson (Pa.)....

Liability for injury due to negligence of employees cannot

be stipulated against.

American Union Tel. Co. v. Daughtery (Ala.)................

Statute forbidding exemption from liability by reason of

66

any clause, condition or agreement" contained in its
printed blanks, held valid and binding.

Kemp v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Neb.)...

806

56

52

808

775

764

579

657

808

592

711

Stipulation as to unrepeated messages has no application to
a case where the message was transmitted promptly and
correctly to the terminal office, and the delay happened
after its reception there.

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

Does not protect company where message negligently
delayed in transmission.

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

Stipulation that "the company will not be liable for delays
arising from unavoidable interruption in the working of
its lines" refers to such delays as are caused by electrical
disturbances or other causes beyond the control of the
company, and will not absolve the company when the
"interruption" of its regular business is due to the fact
that it has turned over its lines to the exclusive use of a
railroad company, during the time in question.

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

While a telegraph company may limit its liability by con-
tract, it cannot do so by mere notice of its regulation.
Accordingly, the message erroneously transmitted having
been written on blank paper, held, that evidence of the
rule printed in the company's blanks, and evidence of
certain regulations of the company, with knowledge of
which the plaintiff, being a director of the company, was
claimed to be chargeable, were properly excluded.

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

If a telegraph company having printed blanks containing a
stipulation limiting its liability as to unrepeated messages,
dispenses with the use of such blanks, it is proper for a
jury to determine whether it did not thereby intend to
waive said stipulation and rule.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Stevenson (Pa.)................

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

Stipulation held reasonable and valid.

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

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

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

66

66

66

66

v. Dougherty (Ark.)..
Sender bound to know of its existence in the blank.

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

Time begins to run from time of actual transmission.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Trumbell (Ind.)....

PAGE.

570

717

750

782

724

764

614

759

779

601

614

650