Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Western Union Telegraph Company v. Andrews

• 1909 • 216 U.S. 165 • Fuller Court
In the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Andrews in 1909, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving telegraph services and their liability for errors in transmission or delivery. The plaintiff, Andrews, had sent a telegram via Western Union to purchase cotton but due to an error by the company, his message was delayed resulting in financial loss. He sued for damages based on negligence and breach of contract. The court held that while telegraph companies are liable for mistakes...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1909
Docket: 8
216 U.S. 165
30 S. Ct. 286
54 L. Ed. 430
1910 U.S. LEXIS 1882
Argued: Apr 13, 1909

Western Union Telegraph Company v. Andrews

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Andrews in 1909, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving telegraph services and their liability for errors in transmission or delivery. The plaintiff, Andrews, had sent a telegram via Western Union to purchase cotton but due to an error by the company, his message was delayed resulting in financial loss. He sued for damages based on negligence and breach of contract. The court held that while telegraph companies are liable for mistakes made out of negligence or lack of skill during transmission/delivery process under common law principles; they can limit their responsibility through explicit stipulations printed on customer forms if customers assent to them knowingly or by failing to object after having reasonable opportunity to do so. However, such limitations aren't absolute - they don't protect against gross negligence (reckless disregard) nor absolve from statutory duties imposed by state laws. In this specific case though, it was found that there wasn’t enough evidence proving gross negligence from Western Union's side hence no liability beyond agreed terms i.e., cost paid for sending telegram.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Western Union Telegraph Company v. Andrews, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was incorrect in holding that a telegraph company could limit its liability for mistakes made during transmission of messages by contractually stipulating such limitations in advance. He contended that this ruling effectively allowed companies to evade responsibility for their own negligence and errors, which he believed was fundamentally unjust. Furthermore, he asserted that it would be unreasonable to expect customers to fully understand or agree with these terms when sending a telegram given the often urgent nature of such communications. Therefore, he concluded that any contractual provisions limiting liability should not be enforceable if they are found to protect telegraph companies from consequences of their own negligence or misconduct.

Opinion written by Justice WRDay
Decided: Feb 21, 1910
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms