The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-06-22
LIABILIFY ron BROKERS TELE-
GRAMS.

portant qnsstl0ns Affecting brokerage con
Germs In q suit Of the Cotton Exchange arm
% Stephen %. Weld a Co. against he Postal
telegraph Cable Company. ariaiha Gus %
an error By the telegraph company n trona-
hitting an order 10 q New Orleans arm for
q sals Ia futures which resulted N q sale
az q lower price than the plaintiff had dt-
reCted. Ths Court Of Appeals decided that
tho printed contract on the back Of tele-
graph blank purporting 20 exempt the CON-
pany from liability for errors An tFanauiie-
sion of the message unless u Il repeated.
does not cover = opse Of error caused 81
gross neaiigsnce. and h that extent aiiirms
judgment of $4,000 obtained By the plain
tits.
The Judgment h reversed on the ground
that u the transmission through which the
los occurred vas q sale IN which no delivery
vas made o. any payment. except anch -
would represent the difference In values nom
the fluctuations Of the market. Il h void ~
wagering contract and no substantial
recovery can be had iOr an error BY The
telegraph company In transmitting me
message. Refusal by the trial JudFs 20 o.
chargs on the request Of the defendant u
q case where an inference could be properly
drawn BY the Jury that such was the nature
Of the transaction Il reversible error.
IN lo0s Edward ~ Weld. . member Of tho
plaintiff Arm and Of the New York and New
Orleans cotton exchanges. rave 70 a tsie-
graph operator in the defendants once 10
the New York Cotton Exchange this mea-
SAGE foe Transmission 70 the plaintiffs
brokers In New Orleans:
Una n. o. Ssil - ihOgssad Mch. tla
wmb.
Tho message vas delivered:
SuIi twenty thousand Marrh isOI. WHIAA
Tho message was Intended 20 dlFsct the
brokers 70 sell 10000 bales % cotton 20
i7fO ceAfs a pound for delivery IN March.
The brokers followed Mattnctiona IN the
message 81 Il vas received and Instead Of
selling a. Ii.TO cents . pound o. more the
brokers sold 81 various prices below i7.To
cents. causing loas BY the error Of ~ .ses.
for which tho plaintiff concern sued ana
obtained iudgment for $4,000.
The chief grounds Of the Defendants
appeal yers that the plaintiffs did not
observe the rule printed on the hack Of
the telegraph blank advising that 70 guard
against delays. the sender should order
the message repeated for comparison,
for which there was an additional charge
Of One-han tho regular rate. The Goa
tract also stated that che company should
not hs held for error OF delay IN trans
mission in an amount more than hfty times
the amount received for he message unless
specially insured. The message could bs
Insured by a contract an writing naming
the AGREED amount Of risk a. rate In add
ton 90 the charge for a repeated MESSAGE
=. =
for greater dlatances on the trial tho
defendant company also raised the point
that the message transmitted was . vager
and that the plaintiffs could not recover
DAMAGES on that account
Judge Werner. Wrlting the opinion. says
that stnce the Appsllate Division unani-
mo,tsly aairmsd the judgment the defend
ant's gross neEliEence must have been
deemed cOnclu-ively estab lished. and the
only question IN that behalf which the Court
Of Appeals had 20 consider vas whether the
rule u liability given by the trial Judge 10
me jury correctly stated the law As 10
the contract inning the liability Of she
telegraph company. the court says that
since Il - a business requiring employees Of
I,e'uliar skill. and u also subject 20 at
m1~phsric and physical disturbances which
nav sst az naughi the aTeatest care and skin.
o. !, therefore bat right that the telegraph
compagis- should have The power 10 lima
their liability In Eases where mistakes occur
through no fault on their Own part. or for
such mistakes Of their employees ~ will
oorur through ordinary negligence IN spite
Of the most stringent regulations or the
most viEilant general oversight. But mani
testify thi4 power cannot b. extended further
without placing the public absolutely a.
the mercy Of fhOse transmitting teleEraphic
message Thseourt saysthis h the reason
for the rule long established IN this state
thHs while individuals and corporations
engaged In quasi public business may pro-
tect themselves by contractusl regulations
that are reasonable. beyond that they may
not 90
Concerning the refusal Of the Trial Judge
% charge. a. requested by defendants az
tornsy. that Il the Jury found that when the
plaintiffs sent the message 70 sell We cotton
they did not intend 70 deliver 70 and that q
Was the intention OF one party 70 the sale
to pay 70 the other only the difference
bet wnen the price named aud the msFkgt
pFiys % the cotton a. the date Axed for
executing the contract. thea the whole
contract constituted nothing more than a
wager. and the plaintiffs are entitled 20 q
verdict for only 20 cents. Judge Werner
savG
~. q, An. r,,,n,g,. Nr,v or,e,B. Sorr,vD,,d.
=. ,s..t..r ,..s,e.s a., ,nrr. va "a d~lI,,
-, :, 80, 80 th.t me ,r,ns,e,,oo conS,.t.t
1870, Al /. -s,t,trm-nt Of difefrncrs- ma.
,-',,-,.,r -. .,nplsmepsed by al ao-ount Of
-. tror, -hten tbe tur, mirht nave drawn the
$780,, ,s.t A .r,s not Inc IN ,-ntloa Of N. oar.
h.. Al me- ountrsrts 70 ~ and deliver actual
hons upon NE basis o. uhlch sstuemen,s we're
70 n nee. -. -,
si'nolAu -. 49,, 49,. -.
ao-ue % w go =.