New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-01-31
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
LIABILITY OF TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.



A STATES RIGHTS JuDGMENT-AN ALABAMA STAT
UTE UPHELD.
WASHINGTON Jan. So Among decisions rendered By
Supreme United States to-day one To-
volvng question OF the Of telegraph CON-
pany neglect and delay in tho delivery Of telegram The
In which this question rises that OF the western
Union Company against George r. Hall. brought here BY
Circuit Court for the South
ern District Iowa November O. 1882 George Hall
teeRraphed from Des Mones Charles T. Hail. at OIL CITY,
PENN order to buy 10000 barrels Of II thought
SAFE Through alleged negligence the part OF employees Of
the Western Union Telegraph Company this telegram was
delivered to the addressse until O'Clock In the evening"
when closed too late to execute
the order opening OF tho Exchange the following
day the price OF petroleum had advanced eighteen cents
barrel Hall contends that OF the failure OF the
telegraph TO deliver his message promptly he lest
This court In elaborate opinion by Justice Mat
holds the only theory which the plaintiff could
damage the suppositisn that he had
bought November might and would have sold on No
vember that in point Of fact he has not suffered
any actual loss appear that the
the sender OF tho to purchase the oil
expectation profits to be derived from Immediate
resale promptly delivered on the day
it was that day. 1t s not found
would have sold the next day at an advance nor that
could resod profit at any subsequent day. Inc
only damage therefore, which entitled to recover tho
cost transmitting the delav ed message. The Judgment
reversed rsmanded with directions to enters
judg ment for that sum merely
decision rendered by the court the case OF
Joseph Smith against the state OF Alabama which presents
another phase question of states rights Smith the
plaintiff In locomotive engineer IN tho service OF
t WHICH regularly
%Sn that State He was for failure to provide
himself With the o W an sst ea
aud asked be released the ground that the act OF
on hat the Une cop.tituon Which
the s s,stSs 4S: court an Opinion a.!s:r
! afurea 20 he
validity called in question say Tsaa sea a Ss
to prescribe ,ns a%ASSS'ious Of Sr. To-
sSssse in %
pS T ss s 1s IN n. f
Ing trade and navigating the inland waters OF the United
sasS Sls sss ."
The power might with equal authority in
the qualifications for locomotive engineers employ
ps..eHss S and That
subject made by But ii: PROV.
eoS.SsTnon are net regulations OF intorstat.
.m1.. ey to Si '9S% Ge
ns n: ana Ss pSc VINO
them which displaced until they come in conflict
ope and v6ic uni 50 dspcc
to the evident nen S q ma. g. ns ia.
the purely internal s,a commerce Of the
e The , cgu, S. Of AZ ~s
feet exclusive had been given to G.s
ststss who were engaged in Interstate commerce.
The other business transacted by the court to-day was a
| follows,
No 49, Tho Union Insurance Company OF rhisdslpsin
cnt on Of the nst ats for the Northern District Of
Ohio Judgment affirmed with costs and interest :,
NS i at s's coli @
chHsots Judgment strned with cost. r,.,,r IN ar
ron ar ro%as G. GS Oas IN
court Of the Un.i state, for the District :. Mas'
No 1875 Roland worthngton csisctSr &C. Pa9ua ~
c sIH az Of Tor
Ns ia Minnie Brace devisee &C appellant art Mich.
Sai s s1S ad %dA Decree
Hes. HAYES .serta.ass Of aiy,: =. in
tod states Tor Dstrict OF NswYOrE Questions
No. M Ere King Iron Bridge and
To s II U as Of the Tor
Of win casts aaa
R the OPINION Of S court
No ys9: L. d. Brown ana others. appellants agt o. l.
No sss l. D. Br.wn and Others appellants. william
ina a, other.
appellants on .: before March 10 9s5 ns S eanG e
ened accoding to law for the purposes appeals with
suete to be approved by the justice of this Court allotted
SO' III i1l a5ss Stewart appellant Branch
pelant March 10 next file. with the clerk OF
in the Sps s1% 81. so %
the Justice .f this cO.r assigned to the
LLOYD plaintiff srcG5 ass John Nc
No. ll0s Laura e. French. plaintiff In error ag Moses
HOPKINS aud others Motion TO dismiss submitted by william
NJ Stewart support OF notion and by j. W. Douglass IN
| opposition thereto ~
No 1898 Eon A Marsh and others, plaintiffs IN error,
Nicholas shepard Co. Motion to advance submitted
by Rufus H. and f. Burton support OF motion,
| and by A. Parker ami Don Dickinson IN opposition
| thereto. ~,
No 93l Samuel q. Hickman. plaintiff in error. agt the
City OF Fort Motion for writ OF ceorari submitted
by William A. McKennsy support OF motion and by Wayne
MscVelgh IN opposition therstO.
Ne $50 Pierre Fayoe and othera appellants. agt the
Texas and Pacific Railway COMPANY Motion 10 dismiss su
mted by w. d. Dayidge, and W. H. Prescott In support Oh
motion and by w. d. Smpmar In opposition thereto o.
No. SS7. The United states, appellant ast the san
Jacnto TIN Company and Others Argument continued w
William NJ for tho appelees and concluded oy
Solicitor General Jerks for appellant
No $50 Tho Washington Ice Company and others PLAIN,
tifs In Nathaniel Webster Argument begun ny
| A. p. Gould for plaintiffs in erTor.
Adjourned until 10 morrow.