De Rutte agt. The New York, &c., Telegraph Company. THOMAS H. RODMAN, for appellants. DALY, F. J. The plaintiff was a commission merchant, doing business in San Francisco, California. He had a brother, Theophilus De Rutte, who was his agent and correspondent at Bordeaux, in France, but who had otherwise no interest in the plaintiff's business. T. De Rutte procured from Callardeu & Labourdette, bankers in Bordeaux, an order for the plaintiff to purchase for them a cargo of wheat in California, at the extreme limit of twenty-two francs the hectorolite, which is the French official measure for grain. The plaintiff was to purchase and ship the grain to Callardeu & Labourdette immediately, his commission and the mode of his reimbursement to be the same as in a previous order which he had received from another Bordeaux firm, one of the partners in which was named Monod. Upon receiving the order Theophilus De Rutte prepared a telegram, in these words: "Edward De Rutte, San Francisco. Buy for Callardeu & Labourette, bankers, a ship load of five to six hundred tons white wheat, first quality, extreme limit twenty-two francs the hectorolite, landed at Bordeaux, same conditions as the Monod contract. Th. De Rutte," and inclosed it in a letter to Jules Lorrimer, a merchant of New York, with instructions to send it to the plaintiff in the quickest manner, and to debit the plaintiff with the charges. A clerk of Lorrimer copied the message upon a slip of paper, and took it to the telegraph office of the defendants, where he gave it to a clerk, to whom he paid $21.50 for its transmission to San Francisco. The defendants have printed blanks in their office, upon which messages are written containing a notice, that to guard against mistakes, every message of importance ought to be repeated, for which half the price will be charged, and that they will not be responsible for mistakes or delays in the transmission of unrepeated messages, from whatever De Rutte agt. The New York, &c., Telegraph Company. cause they may arise. It does not appear that any such blanks were used in this case, nor was it shown that Lorrimer's clerk or his principal knew of the regulation. The defendants' line extends from New York to Buffalo, where it connects with other lines and a pony express to San Francisco. The message was transmitted correctly by the defendants' line and by the connecting lines to St. Louis, but when delivered to the plaintiff at San Francisco, there were several errors. Th. De Rutte was changed to Thos. De Rutte, Monod contract to monied contract, hectorolite to preterlitiere, and twenty-two to twenty-five francs. The plaintiff was not misled as to three of the alterations. He understood the abbreviation Thos. to mean Theophilus, the words monied contract to mean Monod contract, and pretorlitiere to mean hectorolite. The words twenty-five francs, however, he assumed to be correct; but before acting upon the message, he tried, as he said, to get a copy of the dispatch from the telegraph company at San Francisco, but they stated that they could not furnish it. Grain could be purchased in San Francisco at that time at a price which would admit of its being landed at Bordeaux, charges included, at twenty-four to twenty-five francs the hectorolite, but not at twenty-two; and the plaintiff accordingly purchased the requisite quantity, and chartered a vessel for its shipment to Bordeaux, when he received from New York, twenty days after the dispatch, the letter which his brother had written, advising him that the extreme limit was twenty-two instead of twenty-five francs. As a further assurance, on receiving this letter, he had the dispatch repeated, after which he sold the wheat at the cost price, less commission, storage and interest, and after several days effort, he succeeded in getting rid of the charter-party by the payment of $1,600 in gold, and he paid the wharfage of the vessel, and the brokerage fees upon the re-charter, making in all the sum of $2.004.51 fees upon the recharter; making in all, with the com De Rutte agt. The New York, &c., Telegraph Company. missions, storage and interest, the sum of $2,094.51, for which the plaintiff recovered judgment. We are asked to reverse this judgment upon several grounds. The first ground taken by the defendants is, that their contract was to transmit the dispatch from New York to Buffalo, and deliver it there to the connecting line, which they did. That it is made their duty by statute laws of New York for 1844 (p. 395, § 11), to receive messages" from and for other telegraph lines, and that where they transmit and deliver a message correctly to a connecting' line, they are not answerable for errors occurring afterwards. The duty which the statute imposes is as much for the benefit of the telegraph compacts as for the individuals who make use of them; for the business of a company,. where there are several connecting lines, might be materially diminished. if any of them should refuse to deliver messages to, or to receive them from it, and the object of this provision, therefore, was manifestly to enable new companies to compete with established lines, thus preventing the evils of monopolies, and of combinations among companies. But while the statute makes it the duty of a telegraph company to receive and transmit such messages, it does not make it in such a case the collecting agent of the other lines. It imposes no higher duty than the words express, and leaves each company at liberty to require the payment of its own charges before it either delivers or transmits a message. Where a message is to be transmitted through many connecting lines, it is a matter of convenience to be enabled to pay the entire charge, either at the place from which it is sent, or at the place where it is received; and it is the interest of companies, especially where there are competing lines, to make arrangements whereby upon payment to them of the whole charge, a message may be sent the entire length of telegraphic communication. It is to be assumed that this is the case when a telegraph company is paid for the transmission of a mes De Rutte agt. The New York, &c., Telegraph Company. sage to a place beyond their own lines, with which they are in communication by the agency of other companies, and they must in such a case be regarded as undertaking that the message will be transmitted and delivered at that place. The same rule must be applied to them that is applied to a common carrier who receives the whole compensation for the carriage of a package addressed to a place beyond the limits of his own route; that is, that he engages for the due delivery of the package at the place of destination, unless he expressly limits his responsibility to his own route, or the circumstances are such as to clearly indicate that that was the understanding of the contracting parties. (Weed agt. The Schenectady and Saratoga Railroad, 19 Wend. 534; Muschamp agt. The Lancaster and Preston Railway Company, 8 M. & Wels. 421; St. John agt. Van Santvoord, 25 Wend. 660; Id. 6 Hill, 157, in error; Wilcox agt. Parmlee, 3 Sandf. S. C. R. 610.) By taking pay in advance for the whole distances, he holds himself out as a carrier for the entire distances (per WALWORTH, C. in Van Santvoord agt. St. John, supra). Where a railroad that terminated in, Boston, took a wagon at Troy that was to be carried to Burlington, HARRIS, J., said: "It was no part of the plaintiff's business to inquire how many different corporations made up the entire line of road between Troy and Burlington, or having ascertained it, to determine at his peril which of such corporations had been guilty of the negligence" (Fay agt. The Troy and Boston Railroad Company, 24 Barb. 382), and Lord ABINJER, in Muschamp agt. The Lancaster, &c. Railway (supra), remarked, that it was useful and reasonable for the benefit of the public in such a case that it should be considered that the undertaking was to carry the parcel the whole way. "It is better," he said, "that those who undertake the carriage of parcels, for their mutual benefit, should arrange matters of this kind inter se, and should be taken each to have made the others their agents." All of De Rutte agt. The New York, &c., Telegraph Company. which remarks are as applicable to the transmission of a message as to the carriage of a parcel. In this case Lecour told the defendants' clerk to send the message to California, and asked him what would be the charge for sending it to San Francisco, to which the clerk answered $21.50, which Lecour paid, and this, prima facie, was 'sufficient to show that the defendants engaged to send it to San Francisco. Whatever contract was made was made with them, and not with any other company. There was nothing said, nor was there anything to indicate that they were to be answerable only for its correct transmission along their own line. They received the whole amount that was asked to send it to San Francisco, without communicating by what lines it would be sent, or any other particulars as to the mode or manner of its transmission. They took upon themselves the whole charge of sending it, and what arrangements were made, or what sum would be paid for the use of the lines in connection with them, were matters not disclosed to the party interested in the transmission of the message, and with which, consequently, he had nothing to do. He made his contract with them, and if injured by its nonfulfillment, he has a right to look to them for compensation for the injury sustained. The next objection taken by the defendants is, that they entered into no contract with the plaintiff; that they made their contract with Th. De Rutte, who sent the message, acting as the agent of Callardeu & Labourdette. It does not necessarily follow that the contract is made with the person by whom, or in whose name a message is sent. He may have no interest in the subject matter of the message, but the party to whom it is addressed may be the only one interested in its correct or diligent transmission; and where that is the case, he is the one in reality with whom the contract is made. The business of transmitting messages by means of the electric telegraph, is like that of common carriers, in the nature of a public employment; for those |