The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-31
THE SUPREME COURT.
Actual Damage Must he shown in Order to
Recover for Negligence.

Actual Damage Must he Shown in Order to
Recover for Negligence.
WAsHINGroN, Jan. 30.-Amoug the decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court of the United
States to-day was one involving the question of
the responsibility Of a telegraph company for
neglect and delay in the delivery OF telegram.
The case in which the question arises Is that OF
the Western Union Telegraph Company vs. r.
G. Hall, brought here by writ of error to the
United States Circuit Court for the Southern
district of Iowa On Nov. 9. 1882. Geo F. Hall
telegraphed from Des Moines. Ia, TO Charles
T. Hall, at Oil City. Pa, order to buy 10000
barrels of petroleum, il thought safe. Through
alleged negligence on the part of en-
ployes of the Western Union Telegraph
Company this telegram was not delivered 20
the addressee until p. NJ, when, the Exchange
having closed, it was too late to execute the or
der. At the opening Of the Exchange on
the following day the price of petroleum had ad-
vanced Is cents barrel Hall contends that C.
reason Of the failure of the telegraph company
to deliver his message promptly he lost $l,s00.
the sum he would ha We made had his order 20
buy been duly executed. and had the oil SO
bought been sold At the advance of l6 cents on
the following dav. This court, in an elaborate
opinion by MT. Justice Matthews. holds that the
on ly theory which the plaintiff could show
actual damage or loss is on the supposition that
i
aud would have sold on the 10th. It is
clear, however. that in point of fact he
has not suffered any actual loss. No traneac-
ton was. in fact. made. and there being neither
a purchase a sale. there was no actual diff
ference between the sums paid out and the
sums received in consequence. which could be
set down in q profit ana loss account. If the
order had been promptly delivered on the day il
was sent and had been executed on that day, IL
is not found that Hall would have sold the next
day at the advance, nor that he could have re-
"A a
only damage for which be is entitled to recover
is the cost of transmitting the delayed message.
The Judgment is reversed and the cause
manded, with directions to enter judgment fos
that sum merely.
A decision was also rendered by the court to-
day. ip the case OF Josenh d. Smith against the
State OF Alabama, which presents another
phase of the question of State rights. Smith,
the plaintiff in error, was locomotive engineer
in the service of the Mobile d Ohio Railroad
Company, and was engaged in managing loco
motive which regularly hauled trains into and
out of the State of Alabama, but not between
points wholly within that State. He
rested for failure provide himself with the
engineers license required by an of the Gen.
eral Assembly of Alabama He sued out a writ
of haDeas corpus and asked to be released, upon
the ground that the act of the General Assembly
OF Alabama above referred is in violation
of that clause of the United States Constitution
which confers upon Congress power TO regulate
commerce among the States. This court is OF
opinion, first, that the statute of Alabama, the
validity of which is under consideration, is not,
commerce, even when applied this case;
second. that ii is properly act OF legislation
within the scope OF the admitted power reserved
to the States to regulate the relative rights and
duties of persons being and acting within its
territorial jurisdiction. and intended TO operate
SO as to secure for the public safety of person
and properly; third, that far az
il affects transactions OF commerce be-
tween the States. it does only
Indirectly, incidentally and remotely, and not so
20 burden and impede them. and, In the
liars in which it touches these transactions
all it is not 10 conflict with any express en-
autment Of Congress the subject nor con-
trary to any intention of Congress to be pre-
suned from its silence. For these reasons tha
court holds this statute of Alabama, so far as it
is alleged to contravene the Constitution of the
United States, IN be a valid law. The judgment
of the Supreme Court of Alabama is affirmed.
Justice Bradley dissented. and said that he
thought it was gong too far to permit State
to enact laws relating to subject over which
exclusive jurisdiction had been given TO Con-
gress. and To impose conditions upon engineers
from other States who were engaged in inter-
state commerce.