Benedicto v. West India & Panama Telegraph Co., 1374.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Citation256 F. 417
Docket Number1374.
PartiesBENEDICTO et al. v. WEST INDIA & PANAMA TELEGRAPH CO., Limited, et al.
Decision Date19 March 1919

256 F. 417

BENEDICTO et al.
v.
WEST INDIA & PANAMA TELEGRAPH CO., Limited, et al.

No. 1374.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

March 19, 1919


[256 F. 418]

Col. Edward S. Bailey, Asst. Judge Advocate General, War Department, of Washington, D.C. (Howard L. Kern, Atty. Gen., of Porto Rico, on the brief), for appellants.

Francis H. Dexter, of San Juan, Porto Rico, for appellees.

Before JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District judge.

ALDRICH, District Judge.

We see no occasion for delaying the decision of this case by reason of the suggestion that certiorari proceedings are pending in the case of the People of Porto Rico et al. v. American Railroad Company of Porto Rico (decided by this court December 4, 1918) 254 F. 369, . . . C.C.A. . . ., as there would seem to be no sense in which that case could bear upon this, whichever way it may be decided, and that is so because, if it should be held by the Supreme Court that interstate commerce jurisdiction goes to the local affairs of Porto Rico, it would not be decisive of the questions here, and in the event of its being held that such jurisdiction does exist in Porto Rico in respect to local railroad rates, it would have no conclusive bearing, because the questions in this case differ from that, not only as to the question in respect to the three judges required by section 266 of the Judicial Code of the United States (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1162 (Comp. St. Sec. 1243)), but as to the class of commerce involved.

The decision in the People of Porto Rico v. American Railroad Company of Porto Rico was upon the ground that there were no questions there in respect to interstate, interterritorial, or interpossessional situations, with the suggestion that it was quite possible that conditions might be created in the island, through corporate and business relations, which would make its intra-insular railroad business an interterritorial or an interpossessional business, as by connecting with other territories or possessions, while in this case the rates in question sought to be regulated clearly relate to intercommunication by cable between Porto Rico, the United States, the republic of Cuba, and foreign countries, either directly on in conjunction with other lines.

The point is taken that the United States District Court of Porto Rico was without power to deal with the injunction questions involved by reason of section 266 of the Judicial Code, to which reference has been made, where it is provided that no interlocutory injunction restraining the action of officers acting under statutes of states shall be granted upon unconstitutional grounds by a single justice or judge, nor until the application shall be heard and determined by three judges, or a majority of them. So we have to consider whether equity procedure in the island of Porto Rico is subject to the provisions of this section, and we think it is not.

It is quite possible, if the intent were clear, that-- under rules of liberal construction, and under such cases as Metropolitan Railroad v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 9, 10 Sup.Ct. 19, 22 (33 L.Ed. 231), where it is said, 'It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a state'-- Porto Rico might be accepted as a state for certain limited purposes, but we think it not clear under the relationship [256 F. 419] which exists between the United States and that island, and without regard to whether it is strictly that of a possession or a quasi territory, that Congress intended to delegate to the local assembly authority to regulate rates in respect to instrumentalities of commerce between Porto Rico and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., CALERO-TOLED
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1974
    ...some 55 years ago to hold § 266 inapplicable to the laws of the Territory of Puerto Rico. Benedicto v. West India & Panama Tel. Co., 256 F. 417 (1919). Congress, however, created the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico after Benedicto was decided. Following the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico was......
  • Mo Hock Ke Lok Po v. Stainback, Civ. A. No. 765.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • October 22, 1947
    ...decisions pertaining to judicial procedures in Puerto Rico. Benedicto v. West India & Panama Telegraph 74 F. Supp. 859 Co., 1 Cir., 1919, 256 F. 417; Munoz v. Porto Rico Ry., etc., Co., 1 Cir., 1936, 83 F. 2d 262. We think there is a wide difference between the basic governmental structure ......
  • Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, Nos. 52
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1948
    ...v. St. Louis S.W.R. Co., 282 U.S. 10, 13, 51 S.Ct. 8, 9, 75 L.Ed. 135. See also Benedicto v. West India & Panama Telegraph Co., 1 Cir., 256 F. 417. Compare Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Colom, 1 Cir., 106 F.2d 345, 354—355. The District Court thought that any question by reason of th......
  • INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WARE. UNION v. Ackerman, Civ. No. 828
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • January 18, 1949
    ...Po v. Stainback, 74 F.Supp. 852, and that of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Benedicto v. West India & Panama Telegraph Co., 256 F. 417, 418, 419. But see Munoz v. Porto Rico Ry. Light & Power Co., 1 Cir., 83 F.2d 262, 264-267. Cf. Sancho v. Bacardi Corporation of America, 1 C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., CALERO-TOLED
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1974
    ...some 55 years ago to hold § 266 inapplicable to the laws of the Territory of Puerto Rico. Benedicto v. West India & Panama Tel. Co., 256 F. 417 (1919). Congress, however, created the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico after Benedicto was decided. Following the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico was......
  • Mo Hock Ke Lok Po v. Stainback, Civ. A. No. 765.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • October 22, 1947
    ...decisions pertaining to judicial procedures in Puerto Rico. Benedicto v. West India & Panama Telegraph 74 F. Supp. 859 Co., 1 Cir., 1919, 256 F. 417; Munoz v. Porto Rico Ry., etc., Co., 1 Cir., 1936, 83 F. 2d 262. We think there is a wide difference between the basic governmental structure ......
  • Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, Nos. 52
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1948
    ...v. St. Louis S.W.R. Co., 282 U.S. 10, 13, 51 S.Ct. 8, 9, 75 L.Ed. 135. See also Benedicto v. West India & Panama Telegraph Co., 1 Cir., 256 F. 417. Compare Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Colom, 1 Cir., 106 F.2d 345, 354—355. The District Court thought that any question by reason of th......
  • INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WARE. UNION v. Ackerman, Civ. No. 828
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • January 18, 1949
    ...Po v. Stainback, 74 F.Supp. 852, and that of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Benedicto v. West India & Panama Telegraph Co., 256 F. 417, 418, 419. But see Munoz v. Porto Rico Ry. Light & Power Co., 1 Cir., 83 F.2d 262, 264-267. Cf. Sancho v. Bacardi Corporation of America, 1 C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT