The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-03-26
La W INTELLIGENCE
INTERESTING DECISION

We publish below the decision of Judpa Iooon
In the case of Camp who sued the Western Union
Telegraph Line for damages for transmitting a mes
sage wrongly. The decision, it is seen is adverse
TO camp who will carry the to the Court of
Appeals: Its final disposition is a matter of inter
est to all
LOUISVILLE CHANCERY CoURr: A. E. Camp. plaintiff,
gs. U.s. Western Union Telegraph Co., defendant In
Chancery.
The Court rendered the following opinion:
Ii the plaintiff was not legally liable to paw Glib
son d Co. sixteen cents for the whisky which was
sent nm, he would have no pretext in any view of
TINS case for recovering the damages alleged to
have been incurred in consequence of his proposi-
ton being Incorrectly and enormously transmitted
| through the agency of defendant
shall not inquire whether the plaintiff was Ha-
bic for the consequence of the unauthorized propo-
sitlon communicated through defendants mistake
to Gibson & Co.
For, admitting that defendant though special
agent to convey apartcular proposition, could and
did, by enormously conveying a different propo-
sltlon, impose upon plaintiff liability proportioned
to the difference between the authorized and the
unauthorized proposition, which liability would not
have heen incurred but for The mistake committed
py defendant, it does not follow that plaintiff can
recover the amount of said liability in this action
The plaintiff AYERS that defendant agreed to trans
init to Gibson Co. certain message and failed
to transmit it correcty in this, that the message
agreed TO be sent was to pay fifteen cents per gallon
Tor certain whisky; whereas, the message actually
delivered was to pay sirteen cents per gallon.
deliver
the message correctly the result of negligence.
1t appears that the failure to deliver the message
was the result of a mistake, to which, from the very
nature of telegraphc operations, communications
are llable; and that the message in this case was
sent subject to the express condition that defendant
would not be liable for mistakes arising from any
cause, unless the message was repeated by being
sent back.
see no ground for saying that this condition was
void Without this precauton of repeating mes
sages, mistakes by telegraph are unavoidable. And
there Is no principle Of public policy that does or
should prohibit a telegraph company from being
prudent enough to protect themselves from ruin by
requiring such condition in the Transmission Of
messages.
Had the message been repeated in this instance
the mistake would probab not have occurred; and
1t is idle to say that the defendant was bound for
compensation of 3ty cents, to insure the message
unconditionally and absolutely against all mis-
takes.
The points Ofdiilerence between the nature of tel
egraph companies and the nature of common car
riers are SO numerous and obvious, as to render
the unqualified application Of the law of common
carriers to telegraph companies deusive and dan
gerous
But even in the case of common carriers. special
agreements, limiting liability, NAV be made
H. however, special limitations of common law
liability were always void in the case of common
carriers this would be to hold hmita-
tion void in respect to telegraph companies.
The rule and mode of compensation charged by
telegraph offices, the secret nature of messages and
the lmpossbity of determining the value of them
or the pecuniarv consequences of mistakes and mis-
carriages, and the peculiar liability of telegraphic
communications to mistakes, would furnish ample
reason for exemptng them from the strict operation
OF the old law of common carriers.
Ielegraphic messages are paid for by the line
or word, and cannot be paid for according to their
value or Importance. Indeed it would be impossible
to measure their value Importance. No standard
OF measurement could be established and if stand
ard could, by some ingenuity be erected, it would
I'M trpnhla IN ap,,l,,