Wills: Jurisdiction in Probate Proceedings

1919 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW died before she reached her, but this fact was not known when the telegram was sent. The other was based on a telegram beginning "Brother dead." The one sought damages for mental anguish, the other punitive damages. By a narrow construction it has been held generally that the telegraph company is not a common carrier, though it is in a public employment. Tel. Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 30I. By constitutional provision or statute it is often made so, and the Reeves case holds that the provision in the South Carolina constitution is merely declaratory of the common law. This is not the weight of authority. Both cases rightly hold that a telegraph company is not bound to establish a money order office at a place where the business does not warrant it. but that it may undertake to deliver money by telegraph, and if so it must live up to its contract. This it did in the Lehue case because it stipulated to use a bank to make payment, and that it would not be liable for the negligence of the bank. In the Reaves case the company undertook the service and was liable for the failure to deliver in the time promised. There seems to be little difference in the liability of the telegraph company for the transmission of money and of messages. In each case, perhaps, nothing is actually carried, but the effect of the undertaking is the same. It is sometimes said that a contract to transmit money is a business transaction. and the measure of damages is to be the same as for breach of a commercial contract. Hence there can be no recovery for mental anguish caused by failure to send money, even in states permitting such recovery on death messages. Robinson v. W. U. Tel. Co., I14 Ky. 504. But this has been denied, W. U. Tel. Co. v. Wells, 50 Fla. 474, III A. S. R. 129 n, and is not followed in Kentucky in W. U. Tel Co v. Sisson, 155 Ky. 624, in a case where the agent knew the telegram was to enable a son to secure the necessary money to reach his father's bedside, the latter being at the point of death. The telegram on its face did not show this. The recent case of W. U. Tel. Co. v. Bowen (Ala. I917), 76 So. 985 is to the same effect, and so apparently are both the cases under review, the Reaves case saying punitive damages might be recovered for failure to deliver the money where the telegram showed on its face the purpose-"Brother dead", and the Lehue case refusing the recovery of damages for mental anguish because there was no evidence the agent knew of the mother's illness or death. WILLS -JURISDICTION IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS.-In Iowa v. Slimmer, U. S. Sup. Ct. Dec. 9, I918, the State of Iowa, with a view to the ultimate collection of $I3,750 in taxes against the property of Abraham Slimmer, deceased,
doi:10.2307/1277157 fatcat:dakwah6th5alfo3zzedgypn2mq