Court Opinion

ID: 8852047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:16:56.862881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:31.968667
License: Public Domain

HAWLEY, District Judge
(concurring). I concur in the conclusions reached by my Brother KNOWLES on all the points discussed in his opinion and in the judgment therein announced. But I base my concurrence, with reference to the merits of the case, upon the general principles clearly enunciated in the quotation from Gray on Telegraphic Communications (section 18), which seem to me to be sound, equitable, and just. It was the duty of the telegraph company, after having been informed of the importance of the message and of the necessity of its prompt transmission, to have then and there informed the sender of the message of the fact that its wires were not at that.time in working order. It could not avoid any liability by concealing the truth as to the condition of its line. It was its duty to deal with its customer in good faith and upon equal terms; to notify him of the true state of the facts, so as to leave it optional with him to try the other line, or take his chances on the line in question being speedily repaired. By failing to perform this duty, it deprived itself of the right, which it otherwise might have had, of availing itself of the terms and conditions of the stipulation and rules which were printed upon its blank form of messages.