NOTES OF RECENT CASES
25r
TELEGRAPHS. (Discrimination.) Ind. — A use the roller, the tongue broke, throwing plain holding which seems to be the logical consequence tiff from the seat, which was attached to the rear of the previously settled law on the question is end of the tongue, causing the horses to run away contained in Western Union Telegraph Company v. and draw the roller, which weighed some 700State ex rel. Hammond Elevator Co., 76 North pounds, over plaintiff, damaging him somewhat. eastern Reporter, 100. The cases cited in the Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the roller, opinion: N. Y. & Chicago, etc., Exchange v. alleging that he had knowingly constructed the Chicago Board of Trade, 127 Ill. 153, 19 N. E. 855, tongue of crossgrained wood with a knothole ii Am. St. Rep. 107, 2 L. R. A. 411; Inter-Ocean in it, and had plugged up the knothole with putty Pub. Co. v. Associated Press, 184 Ill. 450, 56 N. E. and covered it with paint, so as to prevent » 822, 48 L. R. A. 574, 75 Am. St. Rep. 184; Fried person purchasing the machine from observing the man v. Gold & Stock Telegraph Co., 32 Hun, 4; defect. Under these circumstances it is held that Nebraska Telephone Co. v. State ex rel., 55 Neb. neither the manufacturer of a machine, nor one to 627, 76 N. W. 171, 45 L. R. A. 113; State v, whom he has sold it can sell the machine as sound Citizens' Telephone Co., 61 S. C. 83, 39 S. E. 257, and safe, knowing any for;t as to a concealed defect 55 L. R. A. 139, 85 Am. St. Rep. 870; Smiths. Gold therein, when the consequence of such .defect & Stock Telegraph Co., 42 Hun, 454, hold that a would naturally be an injury to the person usingtelegraph company must furnish its service without the machine, so it is held that plaintiff is entitled discrimination. So the Indiana cotirt is in line to recover from the manufacturer in an action for with the authorities when it holds that where a fraud and deceit. The case, says the court, does, telegraph company in the exercise of its charter not involve the law of negligence, but is controlled rights and in connection with its other business by considerations resting upon the law applicable has been engaged in buying continuous quotations to fraudulent and willful concealment. of prices of products from a board of trade and selling the same at a fixed price to such persons as The ourts seem well agreed that if the manu desire them for such length of time as to make facturer sells an article known by him to be dan such quotations necessary to the successful gerously defective, without warning the buyer, conduct of business in such products, the quota he is liable to any third person who may be right tions and the system of supplying them have fully using it for an injury occasioned by such defect. become impressed with a public interest, so that Langridge v. Levy, 2 M. & W. 519; Lewis v. Terry, so long as the company continues in such business, in Cal. 39; State v. Fox, 79 Md. 514; Huset v; it must supply those desiring the quotations on Case Threshing-Machine Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 865. equal terms. The right to compel the company Kuelling v. Mfg. Co., 183 N. Y. 78, supra. If the to supply quotations is not, however, unlimited, manufacturer negligently puts such an article on for it is held that the requirement of a board of the market, he is liable for a defect injuring a third : trade that every applicant for its continuous person provided the article is imminently danger market quotations shall, as a condition precedent, ous. Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397; Peters obligate himself not to use them for conducting v. Jackson, 50 W. Va. 644. What is imminently a bucket shop, is a reasonable regulation which dangerous, it is difficult to say. One court indi will be enforced by the courts, so that in view of cates that to fall within the category the article the fact that the telegraph company had agreed must be intended to preserve or destroy life. Huset that it would not deliver the market quotations v. Case Ac., Co., supra. But one case included unless the applicant for them agreed not to use a step-ladder. Schubert v. Clark Co., 49 Minn. them for the purpose of conducting a bucket shop, 331. Another excluded a threshing-machine. the court would not compel the company to deliver Heizer v. Kingsland Co., no Mo. 605. Another the quotations to an applicant who refused to excluded a side-saddle. Bragdon v. Perkins-Camp make such an agreement. bell Co., 87 Fed. Rep. 109. E. W. H.
TORTS. (Fraud — Negligence.) N. Y. — What the court denominates " an unusual state of affairs" is presented by the' case of Kudling v. Roderick Lean Manufacturing Company, 75 Northeastern Reporter, 1098. Plaintiff, who was a farmer, purchased a road roller having a tongue to which was attached a team of horses when the roller was used. When plaintiff attempted to
TORTS. (Injunctions — Ticket Speculators.) N. Y. — A decision of considerable importance tothe interests involved which, as far as the writer knows, involves a question not hitherto deter mined by any court in this country is decided in the case of Collister v. Hayman, 76 NortheasternReporter, 20. The plaintiff alleged that his sole occupation was buying theatre tickets for the pur
