From their exceptional position, it is in their power, by a corrupt use of their knowledge and information, to reap unconscionable advantage in the marts of trade, or by their negli ture of telegraph companies and limitation of liability. Mississippi: Telegraph companies perform public duties, and are essential agents in the transactions of commerce. Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Allen, 66 Miss. 549, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 676, 679, 6 So. 461, per Cooper, J., a case of statutory penalty for failure to deliver a telegram. Missouri: Telegraph and telephone companies are public corporations and the use of the streets of a city by a subway company is a public one. Such a corporation is not a private one for personal gain only, but the business in which it is engaged is for the benefit of, and used for the benefit of the general public. State ex rel. National Subway Co. v. St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551, 576, 7 Am. Elec. Cas. 195, 209, 46 S. W. 981, 42 L. R. A. 113, per Burgess, J., overruling State ex rel. St. Louis Underground Service Co. v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 548. See §§ 197, 276, 277 herein. Nebraska: A telephone company is a corporation affected with a public use, a public service corporation. Nebraska Telephone Co. v. State ex rel. Yeiser, 55 Neb. 627, 7 Am. Elec. Cas. 860, 864, 76 N. W. 171, 45 L. R. A. 113. See §§ 21, 520, 521 herein. “In the present state of civilization, it would be idle to assert that a telegraph company is not charged with a public function." Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Call Publishing Co., 44 Neb. 326, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 673, 683, 48 Am. St. Rep. 729, 62 N. W. 506, per Irvine, C., a case in relation to the nature of telegraph companies and discrimination. "That the telephone by the necessities of commerce and public use has become a public servant, a factor in the commerce of the nation and of a great portion of the civilized world, cannot be questioned. It is to all intents and purposes a part of the telegraphic system of the country, and in so far as it has been introduced for public use and has been undertaken by the respondent, so far should the respondent be held to the same obligation as the telegraph and other public servants. State ex rel. Webster v. Nebraska Teleph. Co., 17 Neb. 126, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 700, 702, 703, 704, 22 N. W. 237, per Reese, J., a case as to the status and nature of the telephone and telegraph and unlawful discrimination. New Hampshire: As to provision in statute that “all telegraph, telephone and electric light companies serving parties for hire shall be deemed to be public," etc., see American Loan & Trust Co. v. General Elect. Co., 71 N. H. 192, 51 Atl. 660, 8 Am. Elec. Cas. 117, 120, a case as to the right of such corporations to mortgage property. New York: The business of telegraph companies is "in the nature of a public employment.” De Rutte v. The New York, Alb. & B. Electric, etc., Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.), 547, 30 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 403, Allen's Teleg. Cas. 273, 280, 283, 284, per Daly, F. J., a case as to the nature of such companies, limitation of liability and negligent transmission of message. Are engaged in a public employment for hire and 66 * 66 gence entail ruin and disaster upon individuals and communities. * * * * Their duty springs not alone * from bound to exercise care and diligence adequate to the obligations they assume." Wolfskehl v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 46 Hun (N. Y.), 542, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 647, 648, 649, per Dykman, J., a case relating to the nature of such companies, their duties, etc. They exercise "quasipublic employments," owe duties to the public," "exercise right of eminent domain," "required to exercise due diligence to transmit with celerity and skill," "have become necessary instrumentalities for conducting the business of the country." Pearsall v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 124 N. Y. 256, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 724, 731, 733, 35 N. Y. St. R. 307, 26 N. E. 534, per Follett, C. J., a case involving the nature and status of telegraph companies and the limitation of their liability, aff'd 44 Hun, 532, 9 N. Y. St. R. 132. Ohio: They "exercise a quasi-public employment," exercise the & Wash. Print. Teleg. Co. v. Dry- +6 power of eminent domain," “employment not only public in its nature, but it has become a necesIsity, alike to the social and commercial world." Telegraph Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 301, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 329, 332, 333, per Boynton, C. J., a case involving the nature and status of telegraph compa in case of negligence. Pennsylvanies and exemption from liability nia: Their obligations spring from the public nature of their employment, and the contract under which particular duty is assumed." their They are in some sort public in stitutions, open alike to all and are largely used in conducting the commerce of the country." New York are a public necessity, both commercially and socially, and the public nature of their occupation is fully recognized by statute, and they are responsible for a high degree of diligence. Marr v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 85 Tenn. 529, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 720, 725, 726, 3 S. W. 496, per Lurton, J., a case involving the nature of telegraph companies, their duties, and stipulations "Emlimiting liability. Texas: ployment is quasi-public." "The general duty devolves upon them to serve the public impartially and in good faith to all alike." Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Neill, 57 Tex. 283, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 352, 355, per Bonner, Assoc. J., a case involving the nature of telegraph companies, their duties to patrons and stipulations limiting liability. The business of a telegraph company is "quasi-public" in character. Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Hamilton, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 300, 302, 81 S. W. 1052. Utah: It is simply declared in this case that the business of telegraph companies is as important to the public as that of carriers, and that the public has an interest in the service. The case was one holding that such companies could not stipulate against exemp tion from liability arising from their own negligence. Wertz V. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 7 Utan, 446, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 808, 810, 27 Pac. 172, per Zane, C. J. Vermont: They are engaged in a business of a public nature," " must serve all who come," "are liable for negligence." Gillis v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 61 Vt. 461, 17 Atl. 736, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 841, 843, per Rowell, J., a case of the legal status of telegraph companies, the nature of 66 'In their relation to and with the public they are deemed a kind of public institution strictly private.” Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Reynolds, 77 Va. 173, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 487, 497, 498, 501, quoting with approv al from several cases. This case involves the status and nature of telegraph companies and recovery of statutory penalty for failure to transmit telegram. In a later case in this State, it is said: "It is true that the use of the telegraph company is a public use; that the company is a public corporation as to which the public has rights which the law will enforce. use, while in one sense public, is not for the public generally; it is for the private profit of the corporation." Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Williams, 86 Va. 696, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 184, 194, 11 S. E. 106, per Lacy, J., a case of the right to place poles and wires in the highway and of abutting owners' rights. The See further as to degree of diligence, as to duty and furnishing suitable instruments, etc., United States: Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Cook (U. S. C. C. A., 9th Cir., 1894), 61 Fed. 624, 9 C. C. A. 680, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 799, 803, 805, per Ross, Dist. J. Arkansas: Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Short, 53 Ark. 434, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 592, 595, 14 S. W. 649, per Battle, J.; Little Rock & Fort Smith Teleg. Co. v. Davis 41 Ark. 79, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 526, 529, per English, C. J. California: Cal. Civ. Code, § 2162. Georgia: Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Fontaine, contract, but is the result of the character of their business, and the laws regulating them." 16 Again, "A telegraph company is a quasi-public corporation private in the ownership of its stock, but public in the nature of its duties. It has all the powers of a private corporation, such as a separate legal existence, perpetual succession and freedom from individual liability; and possesses also in addition thereto, the extraordinary privileges which under our constitution can be exercised only by such corporations as are organized for a public purpose, and then only when necessary for the proper fulfillment of such purpose. Among the extraordinary privileges enjoyed by such corporations is the condemnation of private property, which can never be taken for a private purpose. The acceptance of such privileges at once fixes upon the corporation the indelible impress of a public A telegraph company is essentially public in its duties. Without such public duties there would be neither reason for its creation nor excuse for its continued existence. In fact, being the complement of the postal service, it is one of those use. 58 Ga. 433, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 229, 231, 239, per Warner, C. J. Illinois: Tyler v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 60 Ill. 421, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 14, 23, per Breese, J. Indiana: Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Moore, 12 Ind. App. 136, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 700, 703, 39 N. E. 874, per Gavin, J. Maine: Fowler V. The Western S. W. 904, et seq., per Gantt, P. J. New York: Baldwin V. United States Teleg. Co., 45 N. Y. 744, Allen's Teleg. Cas. 613, 651, per Allen, J. Tennessee: Marr v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 85 Tenn. 529, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 720, 726, 3 S. W. 496, per Lurton, J.; Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Mellon, 96 Tenn. 66, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 835, 837, 33 S. W. 725, per McAlister, J. Virginia: Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Reynolds, 77 Va. 173, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 487. 496, 501, 502, per Lacy, J. See sections herein as to rules and regulations, limitation of liability, stipulations, conditions, penalty, statutes and discrimination. Un. Teleg. Co., 80 Me. 381, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 607, 611, 612, 613, 614, 15 Atl. 29, per Foster, J., where various expressions of the courts as to degree of care are considered. Massachusetts: Ellis v. The Amer. Teleg. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 226, Allen's Teleg. Cas. 306, 314, per Bigelow, C. J. Michigan: Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525, Allen's Teleg. Cas. 345, per Christiancy, J. Missouri: Western Un. Teleg. Co., 135 Mo, 661, 37 S. W. 904, 34 L. R. A. 492, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 791, 796, 37 353, Reed v. 16 Reed v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 135 Mo. 661, 37 S. W. 904, 34 L. R. A. 492, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 791, 796, 797, per Gantt, P. J., a case where a stipulation exempting the company from negligence was held void. great public agencies so important in its nature and far-reaching in its application that some of our wisest statesmen have deemed its continued ownership in private hands a menace to public interests." 99 17 That a telegraph company owes certain duties to the public which are not dependant upon personal contract but are imposed by operation of law, is illustrated by the case of receiving, transmitting and delivering telegrams where the company cannot insist upon a personal contract contrary to its usual custom or contrary to public policy; so the failure to promptly deliver a telegram is not only a breach of contract but a failure to perform a duty which the company as a servant of the people is under obligation to perform.18 A telephone company organized to establish and maintain a public telephone system for the purpose of furnishing telephone communication between its subscribers and which under the statute of its incorporation has the right of eminent domain is organized for a public purpose. Its business is of a public character and it is a quasi-public corporation. It depends upon the public for its support and the public depends upon it for its accommodations. 19 § 15. To what extent telegraph company common carrier Generally. Outside of any constitutional or statutory provisions relating directly to the status of telegraph companies as common carriers, and irrespective of any constitutional provision or statute prescribing their duties or governing their obligations and liabilities, there have been constant discussions upon the point whether such companies are or are not common carriers, or to what extent, if to any, they are liable as said carriers. In other words, having in view our first statement, to what extent, if to any, can they, by stipulation, exempt themselves from liability, especially for their own negligence; to 17 Green v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 136 N. C. 489, 491, 49 S. E. 165, 103 Am. St. Rep. 970, 67 L. R. A. 985, per Douglas, J. 18 Cashion v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 124 N. C. 459, 466, 45 L. R. A. 160, 32 S. E. 746, per Doug las, J., citing Reese v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 123 Ind. 294. See §§ 733 et seq. herein. 19 Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. City of Evansville, 127 Fed. 187, 190, per Anderson, Dist. J., case aff'd 143 Fed. 238. |