Basila v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 226.
Decision Date | 31 January 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 226.,226. |
Citation | 24 F.2d 569 |
Parties | BASILA v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Julian C. Ryer, of Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
J. Julien Southerland, of Miami, Fla., for defendant.
This action to recover $5,000 damages, brought in the circuit court of the eleventh judicial circuit of Florida, was removed by the defendant to this court.
The first count of the declaration is for a breach of contract; the other three being the common counts for money had and received. To each count the defendant pleaded the general issue; that the money in question was paid to the defendant under a contract which the defendant had fully performed; and, for a third plea, what is termed the connecting carrier defense. During the trial the plaintiff amended his declaration by inserting his claim for attorney's fee under the Florida statute.
In the stipulation by the parties jury trial was waived, and further, in accordance with the stipulation, I find the facts to be:
That on July 7, 1924, the plaintiff applied to the defendant at its office at Live Oak, Fla., to send the sum of $800 to one Yusuf Basila, at Saida, Syria, and then and there signed the defendant's standard application for such transfer of the money, and paid to the defendant in cash the sum of $800, and also the transmission charges, $16.49. That the application for this money transfer, which was signed by the plaintiff, contained among the provisions the following: "When the company has no office at destination authorized to pay money, it shall not be liable for any default beyond its own lines, but shall be the agent of the sender, without liability, and without further notice, to contract on the sender's behalf with any other telegraph or cable line, bank, or other medium, for the further transmission and final payment of this order." That on July 7, 1924, defendant transmitted by telegraph from its office at Live Oak, Fla., to its New York office, the money transfer order set out in the plaintiff's application. That the defendant did not have on July 7, 1924, and never has had, an office at Saida, Syria, authorized to pay money, and on the 7th day of July, 1924, the defendant at New York, N. Y., employed the American Express Company to transmit the said sum of $800 from New York, N. Y., to Saida, Syria, and there to pay it to the party designated by the plaintiff in the application for the money transfer, namely Yusuf Basila. The sum of $800 was not paid by the express company to the identical Yusuf Basila to whom the plaintiff intended it to be paid.
The evidence shows that, as the money order in question was filed at Live Oak, Fla., destined to Saida, Syria, and was handled by the defendant from the point of origin to New York, N. Y., it was interstate commerce, and that it was delivered by the defendant to the American Express Company at New York, N. Y., for transmission to Saida, Syria, and that such was a matter of foreign commerce. By the Act of June 18, 1910 (36 Stat. 539), amending the Interstate Commerce Act, telegraph companies were placed under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to their interstate and foreign business. As it was aptly said in the case of Gardner v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (C. C. A.) 231 F. 405: "Congress has taken possession of the field of interstate commerce by telegraph, and it results that the power of the states to legislate with reference thereto has been suspended."
Furthermore, Mr. Chief Justice White, speaking for the court, said, in the Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boegli, 251 U. S. 315, 40 S. Ct. 167, 64 L. Ed. 281:
Manifestly the statutes of Florida touching the matter of attorney's fees can have no application here. I think further comment on this proposition unnecessary.
Act June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 595 49 USCA § 20, pars. 11, 12; Comp. St. §§ 8604a, 8604aa), called the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, does not apply to telegraph companies. It is confined in its scope to "any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state, * * *" and holds the initial carrier for loss of property being transported, whether caused by the initial carrier or any subsequent common carrier, railroad, or transportation company. It is settled that the Carmack Amendment does not apply to telegraph companies. Merriweather v. Western Union Tel. Co., 183 Ky. 710, 210 S. W. 190; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Compton, 114 Ark. 193, 169 S. W. 946. And it is also well settled that the Carmack Amendment does not apply to foreign commerce, but relates only to property received for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state. Houston E. & W. R. Co. v. Inman, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 556, 134 S. W. 275.
The defendant has pleaded what is known as the connecting carrier defense; that is to say, that the defendant having performed its full contract with the plaintiff, and having correctly transmitted the money order over defendant's lines, it having been necessary for the defendant to employ a connecting carrier for the further transmission and payment of the money order, there is no liability on the defendant, even at common law, in view of the fact that no default occurred on the defendant's lines. It was not shown, nor indeed has it been alleged, that the defendant was guilty of negligence in the selection of the agent to make further transmission of the money order beyond its terminus.
It is a familiar rule in the federal courts that, in the absence of a statute or contract, the liability of the initial carrier is for such default only as occurs on its own lines. 10 C. J. p. 517, § 842.
And the same rule applies to telegraph companies. 26 R. C. L. p. 558, § 63.
The pertinent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...This being an interstate message, Federal authority controls, and we are bound by the rules of Federal construction. In Basila v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 24 F.2d 569, was held that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, which makes initial carriers liable for the neglige......
-
Lord v. Radio Corporation of America
... ... and assented to by American Telephone & Telegraph Company, is now before me on motion of the ... this position it finds in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (C. C. A. 3) 270 F ... ...
-
Price v. Western Union Tel. Co.
... ... Jacksonville, Florida, but thereafter the Jacksonville office ... of the telegraph company failed to relay the telegram on to ... plaintiff at Ocoee, Florida. As a result of this ... 1278; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Speight, ... 254 U.S. 17, 41 S.Ct. 11, 65 L.Ed. 104; Basila v. Western ... Union Telegraph ... Page 492 ... Co., D.C.Fla., 24 F.2d 569; Vaigneur v. Western ... ...