Case Name: Francis C. Dale, Respondent, v. The Western Union Telegraph Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-07
Citations: 100 Misc. 718
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francis C. Dale, Respondent, v. The Western Union Telegraph Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 718–722

Head Matter:
Francis C. Dale, Respondent, v. The Western Union Telegraph Company, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
July, 1917.)
Telegraph companies — refusal to accept telegram — actions — judgments — appeal.
Where a telegraph operator upon being tendered a telegram and either a ten or a five-dollar bill refuses to accept the telegram on the ground that he had no change for either bill, a judgment against the telegraph company, in an action to recover the expenses of plaintiff and his wife at a hotel while awaiting a response to the telegram which was delayed in transmission owing to the refusal of the operator to accept it as above stated, will be affirmed.
Lehman, J., dissents.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, seventh district, in favor of plaintiff, after a trial by a judge without a jury.
Albert L. Benedict and Francis Raymond Stark (Joseph L. Egan, of counsel), for appellant.
Ely Rosenberg (Jacob M. Cohen, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Bijur, J.
Plaintiff has recovered the expenses of his wife and himself at a hotel in Colorado Springs during the day or two while he was awaiting a response to a telegram wherein he had directed his mail to be forwarded from New York. This telegram was delayed in transmission owing to the refusal of defendant's operator at Los Angeles to accept the same under the following circumstances:
A few minutes before plaintiff's train was about to leave the Los Angeles station, he tendered the telegram and a ten-dollar bill to the operator. The operator refused to accept the telegram, saying that he had no change. Plaintiff then procured five dollars from his wife, being unable to get any change from the conductor or other persons on the train, and tendered the five dollars, to which there was a similar refusal. Although it does not appear that at this time the operator said that he did not have change for five dollars, I think it may be fairly assumed from the testimony that that was the reason given.
In my opinion the rules which govern a technical " tender " are wholly inapplicable to the case at bar, which I think must be governed by the duties of a public service corporation, analogous in this respect to those of a common carrier. See Jones Tel. & Tel. Cos., § 29, 33; Providence-Washington Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 247 Ill. 84, and many other cases to the same effect, as also 37 Cyc. 1611. By analogy then to the case of a common carrier, I am of opinion that a public service corporation must be prepared to furnish change to a reasonable amount, such reasonableness with reference to amount, time and place to be judicially determined. See Barker v. Central Park H. & E. R. R. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237. See also 10 C. J. 683.
This question having been, to my mind, properly determined in plaintiff's favor in the instant case, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs to respondent, with leave to appeal to Appellate Division.
Ordway, J., not sitting.