Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-03-10
rHE QUESTION OF DAMAGES.
Negligence of Railway and Tele-
graph Smpanies-Impor De-
ciaions.

Cl8l0n8e
The following important decisions have
Just been rendered by the Supreme Court,
and are Of general interest to this commu-
nifty:
Bryant & Lockett VS.. Southwestern Rail-
road. Case-from Sumter. Railroads.
Damages. Negligence. Contracts. Charge
of court.
CRAWFORD, j.
1. The charge Of the court should be sp-
plicable to the facts developed by the testi-
mony.
2 Though a shipper of live stock con-
tracted with the transporting railroad that
1t was not to be responsible for attention,
feeding or watering of the stock, but that 1t
should afford the shipper reasonable facili-
ties for those purposes, yet If the railroad
carried the stock beyond the destination
fixed by the bill of lsding, and there de-
tanned them for several days before their
return, it would not be relieved from la
bility for failure to care for the stock after
passing the proper destination.
3. When the Central Railroad received
live stock at Atlanta to be transported to
Americas over it's road and that of the
Southwestern Railroad, aud by mistake on
the part OF the first road, they were con-
signed to a point beyond Americas and
were so received and carried by the connect
ing read, such facts would not relieve the
latter from damages occurring by reason Of
inattention to the stock at the place to
which they were actually carried.
f. Though under the contract Of shipment
railroad may have been liable only for
damages arising from gross negligence, in
not attending to live stock, yet where it
carried the stock beyond the agreed desti-
nation, ard there kept them for q time, its
liability as to such time was not limited to
the results Of gross negligence.
Judgment reversed.
Hawkins & Hawkins and B. P. Hollis for
plaintiffs In error; s. q. Elan for defendant.
Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
Blanchard, Williams & Co. Assumpsit-
from Muscogee. Telegraph Companies.
Damages. Negligence. Contracts. Cot
ton Futures.
sPEER, J.
When q telegraph company for q COM
pensation receives message for transmits
sion over its wires, it is bound to perform
is contract with that integrity, skill and
diligence which appertains to its particular
business; and II by reason Of the want OF
any of these qualities the message be i'm
properly transmitted and injury accrues to
the sender, the company will be liable to
| him for damages.
(a) This is true whether the telegraph
| company be considered as bailee for hire,
a common carrier, or merely as one employ
/ ed to do certain work. So Ga, 433.
| 2. Any rule Of the company which seeks
to relieve It from performing the duty
belonging to its employment with integrity
| skill and diligence is contrary to public
| policy. II therefore it is necessary for the
company, in transmitting messages with in
tegrity, skin and diligence, to have then
repeated, the duty Of so doing devolves up
on it. not upon the sender.
(s). The charge for trans hitting messages
in this State is fixed by the company, noi
by law.
3. A telegraph company cannot By any
rule or regulation of its own protect itseli
against damages resulting from every de-
| gree Of negligence except gross negligence
or fraud.
~. Nor can It by such rule or regulation
limit the damages 10 be recovered to a re
turn of the amount of toll paid out for send
| ing the message.
4. Where a rule of a foreign telegraph
company doing business in Georgia re-
quired persons damaged by failure to pro
| perry transmit messages to present theil
claim for damages within sixty days there
after to some agent of the company au-
| tborized to exercise its corporate powers il
relation to the subject matter Of the claim
a presentation Of such claim to the resi-
dent agents who made the contract anC
transmitted the message was sufficient.
5. A message in these terms: "COver two
hundred September and one hundred Au
| gust,n was shown to be the ordinary Xpres
sions used in the cotton trade, meaning
that the person receiving the message
should sell for the sender two hundred
bales Of cotton deliverable in August and
one hundred deliverable in September
Held, that It was not such an obs cure
message as would limit the usual liability
of the company or furnish the basis for q
charge that a hidden meaning of the sender
not discoverable by the company would not
be a ground Of its liability.
| (a.) There was at least enough on the
face of the message to show the company
that 1t was a commercial message of value
and that Is sufficient TO render the company
liable for negligent or improper transmits
sion.
6. Although q speculation In cotton fu
lures may be an illegal contract, yet ar
agent who incurs expense or loss on behalf
of his principal in carrying out such con-
tract may recover the amount thereof from
such principal. If such loss or expense wal
caused by the improper transmission of &
telegram from the principal to the agent
the former on paying the loss to the agent
would have sustained damage through the
negligence of the telegraph company fol
which ne could recover from 1t.
| Ia The illegality of speculation would
not relieve the company from damages re-
| sulting from its negligence In transmitting
| a telegram according to its contract for q
| valuable consideration.
Judgment affirmed.
J. S. Bigby foI plaintiff in error; Peabody
| 81 Brannon for defendants.