So far as the contemplated erection and maintenance of
electric railway appliances may constitute a public nuis-
ance, an individual cannot have it restrained by injunc-
tion without showing some injury peculiar to himself.
The single wire overhead trolley system held to be not per se
dangerous to life or property.
Louisville Bagging Mfg. Co. v. Cent. Pass. Ry. Co.
(Ky.)......
Electric railway poles, though a nuisance, if erected by
proper authority, cannot be abated by a court, in absence
of fraud or corruption.
Commonwealth, ex rel. Dist.-Atty. v. Westchester (Pa.)
The commissioner of public works of a city, either by virtue
of his office, or as a private citizen, has a right sum-
marily to remove a public nuisance existing in the
street, dangerous to the lives of citizens, e. g., uninsu-
lated electric light wires, without first going to the
creator of the nuisance and informing him of the dis-
covery of its existence and requesting him to abate the
same, and thereafter waiting, before proceeding to
protect the lives of the citizens, for some indefinite length
of time, called a reasonable time, in order to see whether
the creator of the nuisance will not abate it.
United States Illum. Co. v. Grant (N. Y.).................
The rule that he who suffers a nuisance to be maintained
upon his premises, and derives benefit from it, cannot
recover for injury due to its maintenance, applied in a
case where electric wires hindered firemen from saving
a building.
Chaffee v. Teleph. & Tel. Construction Co. (Mich.)...
Allegations of contractual relation in complaint held suffi-
cient to warrant imposition of further damages for
mental distress.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wilson (Ala.)..
In action by addressee of telegram, allegations held suffi-
cient to state cause of action.
Kennon v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ala.)......
Allegation of gross negligence of telegraph company in
failing to transmit and deliver telegram will not support
judgment for exemplary damages.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Godsey (Tex.).......
Allegation in complaint that horses not long accustomed
to electric motor cars are wont to become frightened
thereat, and that thus the streets through which such
railway passes become unpopular for travel, thereby
lessening value of property of abutting owner, does not
raise legal conclusion of additional burden upon street,
and is demurrable.
Lonergan v. La Fayette St. Ry. Co. (Ind.)...................
Poles and wires as property.
Constitute a "structure" within mechanics' lien act.
Forbes v. Willamette Falls Elec. Co. (Oregon).......
Poles and wires in streets and highways.
Use."
Post-roads act of Congress.
Does not authorize telegraph companies accepting its con-
ditions to go upon private property, including railroad
rights of way, without permission or condemnation.
American Teleph. & Tel. Co. v. Pearce (Md.).......................
Requirements fully observed by permitting telegraph
companies to maintain lines in subways under streets of
cities.
American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Hess (N. Y.)................
Municipal ordinance held void as in violation of.
City Council of Charleston v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
(S. C.)...
Wire in navigable stream must be laid so as not to inter-
fere with navigation of mud as well as of water.
May recover against telegraph company for injury to him
by reason of error, delay, &c., in transmission, not on
the principle of agency of sender or payment by him of
price of transmission, but because he is the person for
whose benefit message transmitted.
Sherrill v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. C.).....
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Adams (Tex.)
Action for statutory penalty in Georgia, not barred by
earlier judgment for defendant in action brought by
sender in justices' court.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taylor (Ga.).......
May recover compensation for mental anguish alone in
absence of personal or other injury.
Repetition of telegram. (See "Unrepeated Messages.")
Regulation fixing limit beyond which free delivery of
telegrams will not be made held reasonable.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Henderson (Ala.)...................
It is incumbent upon a telegraph company, in order to
avail itself of a local rule at the terminal office, requir-
ing extra compensation for delivery beyond a certain
distance, to notify the sender of such regulation.
Brashears v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Mo.)...
แ Telegraph" includes "telephone."
Cumberland Teleph. & Tel. Co. v. United Elec. Ry. Co.
Roberts v. Wisconsin Telephone Co. (Wis.)..
State, Duke Pros. v. Cent. N. J. Teleph. Co. (N. J.).......
Statute authorizing construction or operation of street
railway, by any motive power, or any except steam, or
without specification as to motive power, held to war-
rant the use of electricity, although such was unknown
when the statute was enacted.
Commonwealth, ex rel. Dist-Atty. v. Westchester (Pa.)
Detroit City Ry. v, Mills (Mich.)..
Hudson River Teleph. Co. v. Watervliet T. & R. R.
Co. (N. Y.)... . .. . .
Lockhart v. Craig St. Ry. Co. (Pa.)...
Lonergan v. La Fayette St. Ry. Co. (Ind.).
Under a statute conferring power upon a municipal corpo-
ration to permit the use of "steam, horse or other
power," it had been decided that the use of steam could
not be thus permitted, since it would impose a new ser-
vitude. Held, nevertheless, that the use of electricity
could be permitted, under the language "other power."
Taggart v. Newport St. Ry. Co. (R. I.).......
Statute authorizing right of eminent domain to be exer-
cised in behalf of" steam and horse railroads," held to
embrace electric street railroad.
Ogden City Railway Co. v. Ogden City (Utah)......................
Where general statute authorized use of "any improved
motive power" except steam, but the charter of a street
railroad company confined the use of electricity by it to
a mode not involving use of overhead wires, held that
the charter controlled, and forbade the municipal
authorities to permit the use of overhead wires.
Farrell v. Winchester Ave. R. R. Co. (Conn.)...........
A statute relative to "companies for the manufacture of
gas, or the supply of light or heat to the public by any
other means," held not to embrace electric lighting.
Scranton Elec. Lt. & Heat Co. v. Scranton Illum., &c.
Co. (Pa.)....
Under statutes (1) permitting telegraph companies to
erect and maintain their lines upon highways in auch
manner as not to incommode the public use; (2) pro-
viding that the authorities of a place through which
telegraph lines are to pass shall make a written designa-
tion of locations and kind of poles and wires; and (3) a
later statute extending the same provisions to electrio
lighting companies "so far as applicable."
Held, word" shall" not mandatory, at least as to electric
light companies.
Suburban Light & Power Co. v. Board, &c. (Mass.)...
|