Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-01
The Waited states supreme Court
DectsiOns

The United states supreme Court
Decisions
Among the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court of the United States
Monday was one involving thequestion OF
the responsibility of telegraph COM
pany for neglect and delay in the de
livery Of a telegram. The case in which
this question arose was that of the West
ern Union Telegraph Company against
George +. Hall, brought by writ OF
error to the United States Circuit Court
for the Southern district of Iowa. On
the 9th of November. 1882, George T.
Hall telegraphed from Des Moines.
Iowa, to Charles r. Hall, at Oil City,
Pa, an order to buy 1000 barrels of
petroleum il thought sale. Through
alleged negligence on the part Of
employees OF the Western Union Tele-
graph Company this telegram was not
delivered to the ADDRESSED until 6 O'Clock
in the evening, when, the exchange
having closed, it WAS too late to execute
the order. At the opening Of the eX-
change on the following day the price of
petroleum bad advanced eighteen cents
a barrel Hall contends that by reason
of the failure of the telegraph company
TO deliver his message promptly he lost
81, 800-viz., the sum which he would
have made had his order to buy been
duly executed, and had the oil SO bought
been sold at the advance of eighteen
cents on the following day. The Su-
preme Court, in an elaborate opinion by
SIR. Justice Matthews, holds that the
only theory on which the plaintiff
could show actual damage or loss
is on the suppositiOn that if he had
bought on the 9Th of November he might
and would have sold on the 10th 1t is
the difference between the prices on those
two days which was, in fact, allowed as
the measure of his loss. 1t is clear, how
ever, that in point OF fact he has not suf-
fered any actual loss. No transaction
was in fact made, and there being neither
a purchase nor a sale, there was no actual
difference between the sums paid and the
sums received in consequence of it which
could be set down ia a profit and loss ac-
count. All that can be said 10 have been
lost was the opportunity Of buying on
November 9th and of making a profit by
selling on the 10th, the sale on that day
being purely contingent, without any
thing in the case to show that
it was even probable or intended,
much less that it would certainly
have taken place. OF course where
the negligence of the telegraph consists
not in delaying the transmission OF the
message, but IN transmitting a message
so rs TO mislead the party to
whom it is addressed, and on the faith OF
which be acts in the purchase or sale of
property, the actual loss based upon
changes in market value are clearly
within the rule for estimating damages.
But this has no application to the pres
ent case. If the order had been promptly
delivered on the day it was sent, and had
been executed on that day. it is not found
that he would have sold the next day at
the advance, nor that he could have re-
sold at profit at any subsequent day.
The only damage thereon for which he
is entitled to recover is the cost of trans
hitting the delayed message. The judg-
ment Is reversed and the cause remand
ed, with directions TO enter judgment
Tor that sum merely.
4 decision was also rendered by the
court in the case of Joseph j. Smith
against the State OF Alabama, which
another phase of the question
Of States rights. Smith, the plaintiff
in error was a locomotive engi-
leer in the service OF the Mobile
aud Ohio Railroad Company, and
was engaged in managing n locomo-
i've which regularly hauled trains into
md ont Of the State Of Alabama, but
not between points wholly within
hat State. lie was arrested for failure
10 provide himself with the engineers
license required by an act of the
General Assembly of Alabama, approved
February Is, 1887. He sued ont a writ
If habeds corpus and asked TO be re-
eased upon the ground that the act of
he General Assembly of Alabama above
'eferred TO is in violation OF that clause
II the United States Constitution which
'onfers upon Congress power to regulate
commerce among the States. The Su-
)reme Court, ia a long and careful
opinion, holds that the provisions of the
ubiect contained in the statute Of Ala
)ama under consideration are not regu-
atoms of Interstate commerce. They
ire parts of that body of the local
aw which properly govern the relation
)etween carriers OF passengers and mer-
haudise and the public who employ
hem, which are not displaced until they
ome in conflict with express enactments
# Congress in the exercise of its power
,ver commerce, and which until so dis
,laced, according to the evident intention
# Congress, remain as the law governing
arriers in the discharge of their obli-
.atons, whether engaged in the purely
Internal commerce of the State or in
ommerce between the States.
Professor George +. II. Cockburn, for
wenty years principal of Upper Canada
)ollege, and leading educator of that
ountry, has forsaken the school-room
nd has been elected 10 the Dominion
'arliament. Mr.. Cockburn is looked
pom rs one of the coming leaders OF