Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-10-31
A BOOK ON TeleSraph Law.


ga Treatise upon the Law of Tele-
graphs" prepared by Wa. L. Scott and
Milton P. Jarnagin, Esqrs, of Memphis,
and just published, is referred to in very
complimentary terms by the October issue
of the Lag Rerie,v. As a work devoted 10
this important branch of commercial law,
and the frs. entirely given 10 the consider
ton of legal questions connected with the
system Of telegraphing, the book Of Messrs.
Scott and Jarnagin can hardly fail to sup
ply a want long felt in the legal profession,
as well as by business men engaged in the
practical operations Of telegraphs. The
RepielU says of it:
The general style Of this treatise is ex-
cellenl. 1t is tersely written. The points
are briefly stated and always in the most
intelligent manner. The analysis is COM
plete, and everything seems to be in its
proper place, where one would expect TO
find the particular object of his search.
| This has been done even at the cost of re-
petition.
It's authors have certainly shown an in
| dependence of thought in the considera-
| ton of the questions relating to the nature
of the engagement of telegraph companies
| and their liabilities. If we cannot accept
all the views presented in this work, we
| feel bound to give them the weight which
| is due to carefully considered opinions
| upon topics which have never been Judi
cially settled.
The position taken in this work with re-
| gard TO the nature of the engagements Of
telegraph companies deserves special no
tice:
Telegraph companies, say the authors,
"receive written messages at one place,
and undertake to deliver the same words
or symbols to the party addressed, at anoth-
er place. This is bailment < Lo-
cato operis fdciendi has no place in a cor
rect definition of the nature of this en-
| gaeement." It is rather ain the
nature of the bailment, locatia operis nrer.
CUM uehendarlsm The character Of
a chattel seems to be stamped upon
message reduced to writing" etc.
| True it is that such a position is taken
in one or two Of the cases which attempt
to decide the question of the liability Of
telegraph companies; but in the majority
of them it is positively denied. When we
consider the operations of telegraph COM
panies, the agencies they employ, and what
they in fact perform, it is submitted that
the above position is not the most reason
able. How can it be considered that tele-
| graph companies are technical common
carriers or bailees Of any sort? They do
not obtain the use of any property, nor do
they bail goods as such. "The telegraph re
ceiYe5 4 written message for Transmission.
1t uses m1shsnery TO reproduce the words
of that message at distant point, either by
direct copying Of If, under some alphabet
cal system, or by hGnsIating the message
into certain symbols which, marked upon
paper at a distant point, are thus trans
lated into our ordinary language. 1t can
not be said to be even in the manual charge
of the message so transmitted, during its
transmission. BTRey Us. New York and
Washington Printing Telegraph Company.
Is Md. 81.
Is the nature of the engagement of tele-
| graph companies different from that of or
| binary agents who are employed to per-
| form specific services?
| The chapter az to the extent of the re-
sponsibility of telegraph companies is very
| full and complete. The subjected is first
presented upon the authorities, and then
the authors views are given at length,
while it is conceded by them that the weight
of judicial opinion is adverse to holding
telegraph companies to the liability of the
common carrier, they nevertheless declare
them to be so liable. Their reasons are
given at length, and they are worthy of the
pernsal of all. The question of their liabili-
ty is an open one; and whether such COM
panies should be held to a greater response
bility than the messenger carrier, or even
the ordinary bsilee, is still 4 question Of
much doubt.
The authors hold persistently to the
view that telegraph companies should be
held liable for loss OccasiOned solely by
their own negligence, even where the send
er of the message has not chosen to pay
for repetition or insurance. We think this
position entirely correct, aad one which
will be ultimately adopted.