Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/357

PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 357. to the time within which a loss must be notified to the carrier in order to render him liable, are generally held reasonable and valid. 1 § 357. Although telegraph companies, according to the gen- erally accepted view, are not common carriers, 2 they exercise a function of great public importance ; 3 and ^ffames. the reasoning on which, in Railroad Company v. Lockwood, 4 the court based the rule that common carriers can not validly stipulate for immunity from responsibility for their negligence, applies to telegraph companies with equal force. 5 Accordingly, the better and more salutary view seems to be, that any stipulation inserted in a telegraph blank, restricting the liability of the company unless the message is repeated, will not exempt it from responsibility for errors occasioned by the negligence of its employes. 6 But many authorities oppose 1 Within five days valid, Black v. Wabash, etc., R'y Co., Ill 111. 351; contra, Cox v. Central Vt. R. R. Co., 170 Mass. 129; within ninety days valid, Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264; within thirty days, United States Express Co. v. Harris, 51 Ind. 127; Weir v. Express Co., 5 Pliila. 355. Contra, Southern Exp. Co. v. Caperton, 44 Ala. 101. A stipulation in a bill of lading that damage must be adjusted before the articles are taken from the station, and a claim presented within thirty days to "a trace-agent," is unreasonable and void. Capehart v. Seaboard, etc., R. R. Co., 81 N. C. 438. 2 Leonard v. N. Y., etc., Tel. Co., 41 N. Y. 544; Breese v. U. S. Tel. Co., 48 N. Y. 132; Schwartz v. At- lantic, etc., Tel. Co., 18 Hun, 157; Pinckney v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 19 S. C. 71; Ellis v. American Tel. Co., 13 Allen, 226; Birney v. N. Y., etc., Tel. Co., 18 Md. 341; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fontaine, 58 Ga. 433; Same v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nei.ll, 57 Tex. 283. Contra, Parks v. Tel, Co, 22 13 Cal. 422. Compare Western Union Tel. Co. v. Meyer, 61 Ala. 158. 3 The right of eminent domain may properly be granted to a telegraph company; property taken by such a company is taken for a public use. Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75. Com- pare Central Union Telephone Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1; Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 250. 4 § 352. 5 See Telegraph Co. v. Griswold, 37 O. St. 301, 313. 6 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Blanch- ard, 68 Ga. 299; Telegraph Co. v. Griswold, 37 O. St. 301; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fontaine, 58 Ga. 433; Sweatland v. 111. and Miss. Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 433; Manville v. West- ern Union Co., 37 Iowa, 214; West- ern Union Tel. Co. v. Graham, 1 Col. 230; Tyler v. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 111. 421; S. C, 74 111. 168; United States Tel. Co. v. Gil- dersleeve, 29 Md. 232; Western Un- ion Tel. Co. v. Neill, 57 Tex. 283; Same v. Short, 53 Ark. 434; Same v. Linn, 87 Tex. 7; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Beals, 56 Neb. 415. Even though it 337