Thurn v. Alta Telegraph Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District. The complaint averred, in substance, that plaintiff, at the “office of said defendants, at the said city of Sacramento, on the second day of July, 1858, by his agent, in his behalf duly authorized, solicited the said defendants to receive at said city of Sacramento, and transmit to Jackson, the following dispatch; ” and that they refused to receive and transmit the same, the usual fees being tendered. The answer denies these allegations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District. The complaint averred, in substance, that plaintiff, at the “office of said defendants, at the said city of Sacramento, on the second day of July, 1858, by his agent, in his behalf duly authorized, solicited the said defendants to receive at said city of Sacramento, and transmit to Jackson, the following dispatch; ” and that they refused to receive and transmit the same, the usual fees being tendered. The answer denies these allegations. In addition to the testimony stated in the opinion of the Court, it is well to add, that defendant showed that the operator…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Cope, J. concurring.
This action is brought to recover a penalty of five hundred dollars, given by statute for the failure to convey a telegraphic message. Section 154, p. 302, C. L. of the Act in relation to Telegraph Companies, is the provision under which the action is brought.
The section is in these words: “ It shall be the duty of the owner, or the association owning any telegraph line, doing business within this State, to receive dispatches from and for other telegraph lines and associations, and from and for any individual; and on payment of their usual charges for individuals for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Russell v. IrbySupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
3Cited by3 opinions
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. BuchananIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Glascock v. AshmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- Wise v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889