TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.

§ 1. Establishment, construction, and maintenance.

A contract between a railroad company and a telegraph company for the construction and operation of a telegraph line, which had been in force for many years, held to have vested the telegraph company with rights of property in the nature of an easement, which could not be terminated by the railroad company at will.830 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. (C. C. A.) 849.

305

305

305

A provision of a contract, valid when made, but rendered invalid by subsequent legislation, does not invalidate other provisions for which it was not the main consideration, and which are not in any way dependent upon it.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. (C. C. A.) 849.

§ 2. Regulation and operation.

Where a telegraph company contracted for the immediate transmission of a message between places connected with other means of rapid communication, it was its duty, on ascertaining that it would not be able to promptly transmit the message, to notify the sender of such fact.-Swan v. Western Union Tel. Co. (C. C. A.) 318.

Where a telegraph company failed to notify the sender of a message, advising the purchase of stock, that it could not transmit the same promptly, the addressee held entitled to recover the difference between the price he had to pay for the stock after the message was delivered, and what he could have purchased it for if the message had been delivered within a reasonable time. Swan v. Western Union Tel. Co. (C. C. A.) 318.

In an action by plaintiff against telegraph company for negligence in sending telegram to third person, instruction held erroneous, as based on theory that company was liable to plaintiff, a stranger to the company and to the telegram.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Schriver (C. C. A.) 344.

TENDER.

Of consideration as condition precedent to suit for specific performance, see "Specific Performance," § 2.

TIME.

Duration of contract, see "Contracts," § 1. For filing assignments of error, see "Appeal and Error," 84.

For payment of interest, see "Interest," § 1.

TITLE.

Particular species of property or rights.

Evidence considered, and held insufficient to entitle a complainant to an injunction on the ground of unfair competition.-Heide v. Wallace & Co. (C. C.) 649.

TRANSITORY ACTIONS.

Jurisdiction, see "Courts," § 1.

TRESPASS.

Nature of action as local or transitory, see "Courts," & 1.

On mining claims, see "Mines and Minerals," § 1.

TRIAL.

TORTS.

Jurisdiction of United States circuit court, see "Courts," § 9.

Particular torts.

sance.'

Causing death, see "Death," § 1. Maritime torts, see "Collision."

TOWAGE.

A tug held in fault for the sinking of her tow by striking on a rock at the entrance to a channel.-The Triton (C. C. A.) 698.

It is the duty of a tug, taking in tow a canal boat which has but one man on board, to see that the towline is sufficient and securely fastened; and it cannot escape liability for damages arising from the insufficient securing

of the line on the tow by delegating such duty to the master of the boat.-The Lyndhurst (D. C.) 843.

A tug held liable for an injury to her tow from collision with a vessel at a wharf, due to the line slipping from the cleat on the tow, on the ground that it was either insecurely fastened or became loose through prior collision, resulting from negligent Lyndhurst (D. C.) 843.

TOWNS.

See "Municipal Corporations."

For fires caused by operation of railroad, see "Railroads," § 2.

For personal injuries, see "Carriers," § 2; “Explosives"; "Master and Servant," § 6.

On contract, see "Contracts," § 2.

See "Criminal Law," § 3.
Trial of criminal prosecutions.

1. Arguments and conduct of counsel, Where an objection was sustained to an and the jury were directed to disregard the improper statement by counsel in argument, same, the error was cured.-Weeks v. Scharer (C. Ć. A.) 333.

TROVER AND CONVERSION.

Nature of action as local or transitory, see "Courts," § 1.

TRUSTEE PROCESS.

TRUSTS.

Trust deeds, see "Chattel Mortgages."

tion.

Fraud is the practical basis for the granting

TUGS

UNDISCLOSED AGENCY.

UNFAIR COMPETITION.

See "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names," § L.

UNITED STATES.

See "Army and Navy"; "Customs Duties"; "Post Office."

Conspiracy to defraud by execution of straw bail, see "Conspiracy," § 1.

Courts, see "Courts," 88 3-10; "Removal of
Causes."

Effect of judgment of state courts in United
States courts, see "Judgment," § 7.
Indians, see "Indians."

Public lands, see "Public Lands," § 2.

1. Government and officers.

A government officer held liable to the owners of property for its wrongful retention, though he acted in good faith.-Crawford v. Eidman (C. C.) 992.

In an action by the owners of property against a government officer for damages for his wrongful detention of the property, costs incurred by plaintiff in a former proceeding could not be recovered as a part of his damages.-Crawford v. Eidman (C. C.) 992.

Where a government officer injures a citizen by any official act, he is liable, not only for actual damages, but for exemplary damages as well, if he proceeded in malicious or wanton disregard of the citizen's rights.-Crawford v. Eidman (C. C.) 992.

2. Claims against United States. A court of admiralty, which Congress by special act has authorized to hear and determine the claim of a foreign shipowner for damages arising out of a collision with a naval vessel of the United States, has no authority to allow interest, unless expressly conferred by the act. -Watts v. United States (D. C.) 222.

USAGES.

See "Customs and Usages."

USURY.

See "Building and Loan Associations."

VACATION.

Of judgment, see "Judgment," § 2.

VALUE.

1. Appropriation and prescription. The fact that, at the time of the appropriation of water from a stream for the irrigation of land, it was swamp and unfit for cultivation, does not affect the right of the appropriator to the water required and used by him after he has drained and put the land in cultivation, as against a subsequent appropriator.-Rodgers v. Pitt (C. C.) 932.

The right of an appropriator of water from a stream for irrigating purposes is not limited to the amount used when the appropriation is made, but extends to such further amount as may be required for the future development and extended cultivation of the land for which the appropriation was made.-Rodgers v. Pitt (C. C.) 932.

To entitle an appropriator of water to claim his rights therein by relation to the time when

prosecuted the work necessary to apply it to the beneficial use intended with reasonable diligence; what constitutes such diligence being a matter depending on the facts in each particular case.-Rodgers v. Pitt (C. C.) 932.

One of a number of owners of a dam, flume, and irrigation ditch, who by agreement divide the water flowing in the ditch between them, may alone maintain a suit to enjoin the diversion by a subsequent appropriator of any portion of the water to which he or either of his co-tenants is entitled.-Rodgers v. Pitt (C. C.) 932.