TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bailey v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Charles C. Bailey, and v. The Western Union Telegraph Company, and Appellee Charles C. Bailey v. The Western Union Telegraph Company

Bailey v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 P. 985 (Kan. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 11, 1916
Docket
Nos. 19,815; No. 20,078
Judges
Marshall
Citations
160 P. 98599 Kan. 7
Disposition
Judgment of affirmance adhered to.
Summary
Appeals from Shawnee district court, division No. 1; Alston W. Dana, judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Marshall

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION ON REHEARING.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall, J.:

An opinion in these actions is reported in 97 Kan. 619 , 156 Pac. 716 . A rehearing was granted. Both, sides have again argued the cause orally, and have filed additional briefs and cited more authorities. These and other authorities have been examined. We are satisfied with the conclusions reached in the original opinion.

Haskell Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 114 Maine, 277, decided by the supréme court of Maine on December 28, 1915, supports the conclusions reached by this court.

In Boyce v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (Va.) 89 S. E. 106 , decided June 8, 1916, a case arising over an interstate telegram containing substantially the same conditions as the telegram in the present cases, the supreme court of Virginia said:

“We áre, however, of opinion that the weight of authority and the better reason sustain the conclusion we have reached that the defendant company is entitled to the protection afforded it by the stipulation in question, and is only liable to the plaintiff for the cost of transmitting the unrepeated message sent by him.” (p. 109.)

See, also, Gardner v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 281 Fed. 405 , decided February 28, 1916.

We adhere to and confirm our former opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1917: 31920: 119172026peak 1917 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shawnee Milling Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.166 P. 493 (Kan. 1917)
  2. Durre v. Western Union Telegraph Co.161 N.W. 755 (Wis. 1917)
  3. Kirsch v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.164 P. 267 (Kan. 1917)
  4. Klippel v. Western Union Telegraph Co.186 P. 993 (Kan. 1920)

Most recent

  1. Klippel v. Western Union Telegraph Co.186 P. 993 (Kan. 1920)
  2. Shawnee Milling Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.166 P. 493 (Kan. 1917)
  3. Kirsch v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.164 P. 267 (Kan. 1917)
  4. Durre v. Western Union Telegraph Co.161 N.W. 755 (Wis. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Bailey v. Western Union Tel. Co., 156 P. 716 (Kan. 1916) 10
Chew v. Nicholson, 281 F. 400 (D. Del. 1922) 8
Boyce v. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 S.E. 106 (Va. 1916) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list