In Providence, the court remarked that

the message sent by appellee to its agent related to an important business transaction. It disclosed the nature of the business to be the cancellation of insurance on paper mill property. Appellant's agent could not have been ignorant of the fact that the prompt delivery of the message was an important matter. The mere fact that the telegraph was resorted to, instead of the mails, between points in the same state no farther apart than the cities from which and to which it was sent, was sufficient to inform the agent of appellant that it was important to appellee's rights that the message be delivered with all reasonable speed, and that if this was not done it was liable to result in injury to appellee.

Compare Siegel (the bet on the horse case).  The sender was in Illinois, the recipient in Washington, D. C., but why was it not true that "the mere fact that the telegraph was resorted to, instead of the mails, . . . was sufficient to inform the agent of appellant that it was important to appellee's rights that the message be delivered with all reasonable speed"?  Compare also:  Kerr S.S. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America: Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Lathrop. 

Resources