Source: http://cashrailway.co.uk/courtcases.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:38:58+00:00

Document:
1858. [Not relating to a cash carrier.] The Electric Telegraph Company installed a tube to its branch office in Mincing Lane in 1858. So that steam engines would not be needed at each end a 'vacuum reservoir' measuring 10 X 12 X 14 feet was constructed in a house in Mincing Lane. Once a carrier got stuck in the tube, causing the reservoir to implode and demolishing the wall of the house. "At the time the landlord of the house happened to be dining in the next room, and he suddenly found himself, his dinner and the door .. precipitated into the room amongst the debris of the chamber." Following this incident compressed air rather than vacuum was used.
1884. "The Lamson Cash Railway company .. have brought suit against Willie (?) G. Burnham, formerly of this city and now manager of the Flagg Cash Carrier company, and against Abel T. Atherton of this city. It is charged that they have authorized and caused the publication of certain articles in the newspapers of Boston, which are not only injurious to the above company but false." Lowell Weekly Sun, 26 Jul. 1884, p.8. The Boston Post article is reproduced here.
1897. Briggs v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. (RI) 653. "Complaint in action for injuries from fall of box from cash railway, charging location of terminus of railway as negligence, amended."
1904. Lamson Pneumatic Tube Co v. Phillips. The defendant's contract of employment stated that, on ceasing to work for the plaintiffs, he would not engage in a similar business, for a period of five years, anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere. It was felt that such a restriction was reasonable, bearing in mind the plaintiffs' business.
1906. Hamilton Brass Manufacturing Co. v. Barr Cash and Package Carrier Co., 38 S.C.R. 216 (Supreme Court of Canada). By agreement between them the Hamilton Brass Mfg. Co. was appointed agent of the Barr Cash Co. for sale and lease of its carriers in Canada at a price named for manufacture; net profits to be equally divided and quarterly returns to be furnished, either party having liberty to annul the contract for non-fulfillment of conditions. The agreement was in force for three years when the Barr Co. sued for an account, alleging failure to make proper returns and payments.
1907. Barr Cash & Package Carrier Co. v. Brooks-Ozan Mercantile Co. 101 S.W.408 (Ark., 1907) The apellant sued the appellee on a written contract whereby it was agreed that appellant should erect for appellee a system of five stations of cash and package carriers. The contract provides that .. the appellant should lease to the appellee for five years.
1908. British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd. v. Lamson Store Service Co. Ltd.. 1 KB 1006. This is a famous case for the definitions of maintenance and champerty. "Maintenance .. is directed against wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others in which the defendant has no interest whatever, and where the assistance he renders to the one or the other party is without justification or excuse." Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance, in which the maintainer receives something of value for the assistance given. Concerned three businesses - Reese & Gwillim of Cardiff, Whiteman of Derby and Harper Bros of Balham - where BCPC and Lamson were competing for business.
1908. "Scream after scream rang through the dry goods store of H.A.Baker & Co., 1,720 Broadway, Williamsburg, at 5:30 o'clock yeaterday afternoon... The few who ran in the direction of the screams found Kate Gorham, the young cashier of the store, lying in a heap in her booth. The girl's head had been scalped almost bare by a flying wire carriage in which goods are sent along to the wrapping room on overhead wires. One or two girls who had seen the accident said that Miss Gorham sttod up to speak to a friend just as thecarriage came into the booth." New York Times, 16 May 1908.
1938. J.C. Penny Co. v. Forrest. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. On the afternoon of the 12th day of December, 1934, the plaintiff..while a customer in the defendant's store, suffered an accidental injury when a mechanical carrier fell from the overhead system for the carriage used in the store... The system was the approved system used by thousands of stores all over the United States.
2003. The news service icSolihull on 28 November 2003 recounted how a cashier had trapped her hand in the pneumatic tube apparatus at the Tesco store in Castle Bromwich. She was rescued by firefighters from Sheldon and suffered only bruising and scratches.
? Anderson v. Mc Carthy Dry Goods Co. 49 Wash 398. An action to recover damages caused by the falling of a basket from an overhead carrier system in the defendant's store.
? Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents (United States), date unknown, p.309. "If, however, it could be conceded that Fordyce's experiment in 1901 constituted a reduction to practice, the testimony, in my opinion, shows that the invention was concealed in the shops of the Bostedo Pneumatic Tube Company for such a period of time as would subordinate his rights to those of Stoetzel, who installed and successfully operated several systems embodying this invention prior to the date upon which Fordyce filed his application."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.