Pacific Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Bank of Palo Alto
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Upon the trial of this case the court found, among other tilings: That on December 27. 1898, and for some time prior thereto, one Dee B. Minlder was in the employ of the defendant, as an operator, at its office in the city and county of San Francisco, and as such it was the duty and within the scope of his employment to send messages from the office of the company at San Francisco.
Read the full summary
In. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Upon the trial of this case the court found, among other tilings: That on December 27. 1898, and for some time prior thereto, one Dee B. Minlder was in the employ of the defendant, as an operator, at its office in the city and county of San Francisco, and as such it was the duty and within the scope of his employment to send messages from the office of the company at San Francisco. That said company was known to the public and to the plaintiff to be operating a line of telegraph- wires for the general…
1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge
1. The vital question involved in this case is whether or not a telegraph company can be held responsible in damages for the criminal use of its wires and instruments by a subordinate employ d, to wit, a telegraph operator, as distinguished from the manager, agent, or superintendent of the business, acting in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with an outside party, and in criminal violation of the duties of his position and employment. This question and the legal principles relating thereto are to some extent unusual, and are exceedingly interesting and important. The general rule as to the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. PrenticeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Elwood v. . the Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. DerbySupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. BrockettSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Ramsden v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Rutherford v. Rideout BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Otis Elevator Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Meyerle v. Pioneer Publishing Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1920
- Bank of Havelock v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v. LutzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.