Smith v. Western Union Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1887 |
| Citation | 2 S.W. 483,84 Ky. 664 |
| Parties | SMITH v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. (Two Cases.) |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Louisville chancery court.
Emmet Field, for appellant, Smith. Bozel Weissenger, for appellee Western Union Tel. Co.
The appellant brought suit, in the Louisville chancery court against the appellee, in which he alleged, in substance, that he was the owner and proprietor of the Louisville Cotton, Stock, and Provision Exchange; that he was a merchant, and his business consisted in the buying and selling of grain, provisions, and other merchandise; that, in order to enable him to carry on his business successfully, and to compete with other persons engaged in similar business, it was absolutely necessary that he should be promptly and constantly informed of the prices of such commodities in the leading markets of Chicago and New York, etc.; that the appellee had, for many years past combined with its regular business of telegraphing messages for the benefit of the public, the business of collecting the market reports in the leading business centers of this country; that the principal market for grain and provisions was the Chicago board of trade; that the appellee, by contract, had collected said reports, and delivered and distributed them from the main office of the appellee to the respective offices of its customers, by means of its wires, and a printing-machine called a ticker; that, by contract, appellant, as one of appellee's customers, was entitled to the prompt delivery, at his business office, by means of said wires and ticker, of all reports of the market prices of grain, provisions, etc., from the Chicago board of trade and other leading business centers, as received by appellee over its wires; that appellee, as such dealer, for the benefit of the public, had no right to refuse to furnish the appellant with said reports,--the appellant paying a fair compensation therefor, --nor to discriminate against appellant in favor of other customers engaged in similar business; that appellee threatened to cease to furnish appellant with said reports, and to deprive him of the use of said ticker, unless he would sign a contract agreeing to give appellee all of his message business at regular message rates, etc.; that appellant refused to sign said contract with said clause in it, because the same was illegal, etc. The lower court, in accordance with the prayer of appellant's petition, granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellee from stopping the supply of said reports to the appellant, and from removing said ticker.
By the appellee's answer and amended answer it denied that appellant was a merchant, or that his business consisted in buying or selling grain, provisions, or other merchandise, or that it was then under a contract with the appellant to continue to allow him the use of said ticker, or to furnish him thereby with all market reports, etc.
The evidence tends strongly to show that the appellant, at the time complained of, was not a grain and provision merchant but was the keeper of a bucket shop, which is described as a place where grain, provisions, etc., are posted on blackboards as they come in on the ticker. The shop buys or sells indifferently, and always at the price appearing for the time being on the blackboard. Should a customer wish to make a deal in June wheat, say buy 1,000 bushels, he sees the last quotation, say one dollar per bushel. He gives the shop the margin, say one cent on the bushel, or $10. The shop charges a fixed commission, say one-quarter of a cent per bushel. The shop does not notify the customer of the fluctuations of the market, but he looks out for that on the blackboard. Wheat on the next quotation goes down, say three-quarters of a cent. This loss of three-quarters of a cent, added to one-quarter of a cent charged for commission, makes one cent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
...would be converted into public vehicles for the consummation of illegal acts prohibited by state laws. Smith v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 84 Ky. 664, 2 S.W. 483 (Ct.App.1887); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State, 165 Ind. 492, 76 N.E. 100, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 153 (Sup.Ct.1905); Bryant v. Wes......
-
State v. Miner
...of the Merchants' Stock and Grain Company was a bucket shop business. That business has been defined by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 84 Ky. 664. See Connor Black, 119 Mo. 141; Bryant v. Tel. Co., 17 F. 827; Weare Co. v. People, 209 Ill. 539. 2. There is substantial evidence that appell......
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. State ex rel. Hammond Elevator Company
... ... public, so far as it is able to do so, with substantial ... impartiality and without invidious discrimination ... Central Union Tel. Co. v. Bradbury (1886), ... 106 Ind. 1, 5 N.E. 721; Indiana, etc., Gas Co. v ... State, ex rel. (1902), 158 Ind. 516, 57 L ... R. A ... R. A. 113; ... State v. Citizens' Tel. Co. (1901), 61 ... S.C. 83, 39 S.E. 257, 85 Am. St. [165 Ind. 502] 870, 55 L. R ... A. 139; Smith v. Gold., etc., Tel. Co ... (1886), 42 Hun 454. No error was committed in overruling ... appellee's demurrer to the amended complaint ... ...
-
Western Union Tel. Co. v. State ex rel. Hammond Elevator Co.
...had not taken the action it has.” Christie Street Commission Co. v. Board of Trade, 94 Ill. App. 229; See, also, Smith v. Western Union Tel. Co., 84 Ky. 664, 2 S. W. 483. We are unwilling that the Board of Trade of Chicago should be a more considerate guardian of the morals of this state th......