Commercial Cable Co v. Burleson Commercial Pac Cable Co v. Same
| Decision Date | 09 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 815 and 816,s. 815 and 816 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL CABLE CO. v. BURLESON, Postmaster General, et al. COMMERCIAL PAC. CABLE CO. v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles E. Hughes, of New York City, for appellants.
Mr. Solicitor General King, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
By virtue of the Joint Resolution of July 16, 1918 (40 Stat. 904, c. 154 [Comp. St. 1918, § 3115 3/4 x, appendix]), considered in the Dakota Central Telephone Case, 250 U. S. 163, 39 Sup. Ct. 507, 63 L. Ed. ——, decided June 2, 1919, the President, by proclamation dated November 2, 1918 (Sess. Laws 65th Cong., 2d Sess., part 2, 'Proclamations, 1918,' p. 228), assumed control, possession, and supervision 'of each and every marine cable system and every part thereof owned or controlled and operated by any company or companies organized and existing under the laws of the United States, or any state thereof.'
As in the case of the telephone lines, the proclamation conferred authority upon the Postmaster General to carry out its provisions. In the name of the President, the Postmaster General then took possession and assumed control of the cable lines owned or under the control of the two companies which are appellants on these records. The companies thereupon filed their bills in the court below to enjoin the Postmaster General or his representatives from interfering with their property because (1) n der the circumstances alleged the President had no power to take possession and control of the cable lines; (2) if he had such power, he was not justified in exerting it under the conditions stated; and (3) as the result of the failure to provide adequate compensation, the taking of the cable lines was void for repugnancy to the Constitution. These propositions were based upon elaborate averments concerning the subject-matter. On motion of the defendant the bills were dismissed for want of equity. The court held that as under the facts admitted the first two propositions raised no question of power, but only charged a wrongful exercise of a discretion vested, they stated no ground for relief as the subject was not justiciable, and that as to the third proposition there was no equity in the bill because the provision made for compensation met the constitutional requirement.
By appeals, the cases were brought here and were argued and submitted in March last. While they were under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle
...might lie, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot because nothing remained to be enjoined. See, Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030 (1919). See generally, Note, Mootness on Appeal in the Supreme Court, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1672, 1674-5 (1970). Much of......
-
Cherry Lane Fashion Group, Inc. v. US, 88-08-00668.
...the importer has received its requested relief and the first two causes of action are moot. See Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 362-63, 39 S.Ct. 512, 513, 63 L.Ed. 1030 (1919) (suit to enjoin government's seizure of marine cable lines dismissed as moot when the lines were re......
-
Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pa.
...Allen v. Regents of the University System of Georgia, 304 U.S. 439, 58 S.Ct. 980, 82 L.Ed. 1448 (1938); Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030 (1919); Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U.S. 696, 12 S.Ct. 103, 35 L.Ed. 906 (1891); State of Alabama e......
-
Cover v. Schwartz
...States v. Alaska S. S. Co., supra, is to be regarded as based on the constitutional provision. 11 See Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L. Ed. 1030; United States v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812, 49 S.Ct. 262, 73 L.Ed. 971; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U. ......