Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

INDEX.

Abutting owner, rights of, as to use of highway for
electrical purposes. (See NOTES, pp. 119, 184, 206.)

In rural highway, fee to center of which is in abutting
owner, erection of telephone and telegraph poles and wires
imposes new servitude for which compensation must be
made.

Eels v. Am. Teleph. & Tel. Co. (N. Y.)... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... ....

Contra as to telegraph poles.

People v. Eaton (Mich.).

And as to telephone appliances.

Cater v. Northwestern Teleph. Exch. Co. (Minn.).....

Injunction at suit of, to prevent replacing certain telegraph
poles with new ones, and to increase number of wires,
denied.

Wirth v. Postal Tel. Cable Co. (Ohio)......

[blocks in formation]

184, note.

Having consented to running of telegraph line in front of
his premises, restrained by injunction from interference
with poles placed exactly as designated by him, and wires
strung upon them, or with completion of line. This
upon principle of equitable estoppel and independent
of question of new servitude.

W. U. Tel. Co. v. Bullard (Vt.)..

102

Protected by injunction from erection of telephone pole in
front of door or window of his building.

Russ v. Pa. Teleph. Co. (Pa.).......

109

While municipal corporation has right to use streets for fire
alarm service, such use must be reasonable. Maintenance
of unsightly poles in a handsome residence street for sup-
port of only two wires, unreasonable.

Prentiss v. Cleveland Teleph. Co. (Ohio).....

125

Electric light poles, for public lighting, impose no new servi-
tude.

Loeber v. Butte General Elec. Co. (Mont.).....

130

Electric street railway and appliances impose additional
servitude, outside of municipal boundaries.
Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Montgomery Co., &c., Ry.
Co. (Pa.)..

166

Electric street railway imposes no new burden, in city

street.

Limburger v. San Antonio, &c., Ry. Co. (Tex.).
Simmons v. Toledo (Ohio)...

State, Kennelly, Pros. v. Jersey City (N. J.).

PAGE.

156

152

146

[ocr errors]

West Jersey R. Co. v. Camden, &c., R. Co. (N. J.)........... 137

Never adjudicated in New Jersey as to rural highway. Borden v. Atlantic Highlands, &c., Elec. Ry. Co. (N. J.) ..

May restrain by injunction, as nuisance, construction of electric railway in borough street, without consent of local authorities.

Thomas v. Inter-County St. Ry. Co. (Pa.).. . .. . .

179

179

175

Held entitled to recover against electric street railway company for injury to his right of access caused by cutting down street without compensating him.

Eachus v. Los Angeles Consol. Elec. Ry. Co. (Cal.)... 184, note.

Not entitled to damages for interference with right of access by electric railway coming so near sidewalk as to interfere with convenient receipt and delivery of goods.

Limburger v. San Antonio, &c., St. Ry. Co. (Tex.)........

In action at suit of, to restrain operation of electric railway which had filled in roadway in front of plaintiff's house so as to injure his means of access and to compel restoration of road to former level, judgment of Donsuit reversed.

156

Westheffer v. Lebanon, &c., St. Ry. Co. (Pa.)....... 184, note. Stay of proceedings granted at instance of, pending hearing and decision of certiorari to review ordinance granting right to erect trolley railway, vacated.

State, Roebling, Pros. v. Trenton (N. J.)...................

Has property interest in shade trees along highway, and right to their enjoyment, subject only to convenience of public travel.

Such property right is proper subject of legislation for his protection.

Not estopped from asserting property interest in highway and trees as against telegraph company, by failure to apply for injunction when line was built.

Dailey v. State (Ohio)......

Electric railway company authorized by city to erect trolley

136

186

road has right to trim trees overhanging street when
reasonably necessary for passage of wires.

Dodd v. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J.).......

Held, sufficient evidence of gross negligence in action
against telephone company for cutting trees, with sup-
posed consent of owner.

Poston v. Cumberland Teleph. & Tel. Co. (Tenn.)......

In action against electric company for trespass in cutting
limbs from shade trees, charge to jury held sufficiently
favorable to defendant.

Gorman v. Eastchester Elec. Co. (N. Y.)...............

Admissions, declarations and aets of agents or servants
of telegraph companies.

Agent no right to substitute service message for prepaid
message handed him for transmission.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Moss (Ga.)......

PAGE.

201

203

199

848, note.

Payment to messenger of bill pertaining to message deli-
vered by him at time of delivery is payment to company;
as to any other message authority to collect should be
ascertained.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Power (Ga.).......

848, note.

Certain declarations held to be beyond scope of employment,
and so not binding on company.

W. U. Tel. Co. v. Mullins (Neb.) ..

....

850, note.

Burden of proof.

On company maintaining electric wires, that it was not
negligent in allowing live wire to hang so near side-
walk that traveler came in contact with it and was
killed.

Denver Consol. Elec. Co. v. Simpson (Col.).
Haynes v. Raleigh Gas Co. (N. C.) ...

......

If traveler both look and listen for approaching cars before
attempting to cross electric railway, company, complain-
ing that he did not look and listen at right place, has bur-
den of establishing that there was a place where he could
have had a better view.

Downey v. Pittsburg, &c., Traction Co. (Pa.)...................
Failure to deliver, or delay of, telegram, raises presumption
of negligence.

Sherrill v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. C.).....
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boots (Tex ).

278

264

565

754

856, note.

California telegraph statute.
Declares that telegraph company is not common carrier, but
must use 66
great care and diligence." So far as stipula-
tion as to unrepeated messages purports to exempt com-
pany from liability in case of failure to exercise such care
it is ineffectual.

PAGE

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Cook (U. S.)....

799

Certiorari.

Proper remedy of abutting owners to test legality of munici

pal ordinance authorizing railway company to place rails,
poles and wires on their land in the street.

146

State, Kennelly, Pros. v. Jersey City (N. J.)....

Cipher and unintelligible dispatches. (See "Damages.")

Condemnation. (See "Eminent Domain.")

Constitutional law.

Indiana statute for taxation of telegraph companies not un-
constitutional.

W. U. Tel. Co. v. Taggart (Ind.).

State privilege tax upon telegraph company which has
availed itself of privileges of post-roads act, said tax being
in lieu of all other taxes and based upon number of miles
of wire within State, not unconstitutional.

Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams (U.S.).........

Municipal ordinance imposing on telegraph company tax
restricted to business done wholly within city and not in-
cluding business done for Federal government, not uncon-
stitutional.

Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Charleston (U. S.).......

Michigan statute authorizing maintenance of telegraph
lines in highway, subject only to convenience of traveling
public, not unconstitutional, as taking private property
for public use without compensation.

People v. Eaton (Mich.)...

New York statute permitting street railway to cross steam
railroad at grade does not infringe State Constitution.
Buffalo, &c., R. Co. v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co.
(N. Y.)........

Statute compelling street railway companies to provide en-
closures to protect motormen, held constitutional.

State v. Hoskins (Minn.)....
State v. Nelson (Ohio)...

646

036

663

87

261, note.

614

619

Statute which requires city or town desiring to engage in
business of electric lighting, to purchase plant of any pri-
vate corporation doing such business there and desiring
to sell, not unconstitutional.

Citizens' Gaslight Co. of Reading v. Wakefield (Mass.)

Statutes prescribing penalties for negligence of telegraph
companies not repugnant to interstate commerce provi-
sions of Federal Constitution.

Butner v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Ok.).......

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bright (Va.)..
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Howell (Ga.)...
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Lark (Ga.).

PAGE.

631

758

797

849, note.

849, note.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Michelson (Ga.)......... 849, note.

Contract. (See "Discrimination.")

Contributory negligence. (See also "Duty to Passengers.”
"Duty to Travellers.")

Not under circumstances of given case, for boy walking
on sidewalk to take hold of apparently dead wire, receiving
electric shock which caused his death.

Haynes v. Raleigh Gas. Co. (N. C.).......

Question held properly submitted to jury, as to person killed
by picking up live electric wire, though previously
warned.

Texar kana Gas & Elec. Lt. Co. v. Orr (Ark.).........
Of persons injured by electric shock, question for jury.
Illingsworth v. Boston Elec. Lt. Co. (Mass.).
Giraudi v. Elec. Imp. Co. of San Jose (Cal.).......

Whether or not experienced lineman, who in daytime when
standing upon copper roof which he knew was a con-
ductor of electricity, unnecessarily stooped under a group
of electric wires, which he saw and knew might be
dangerous, without noticing another group of wires
nearby and in plain sight; in consequence of which con-
duct his hand came in contact with electric light wire
at place where insulation was burned off, and was
injured-was guilty of, so as to bar recovery, quære.
Hector v. Boston Elec. Lt. Co. (Mass.)......

Failure of sender of telegram to give street and number of
addressee, is not.

264

272

312

318

300

Western Union Tel. Co. v. H. G. Smith (Ga.)....... 848, note.

Damages and measure of damages for error, &c., in trans-
mission of telegrams.

Measure for error in transmission of cipher dispatch, con-

« ZurückWeiter »