Western Union Telegraph Co v. Boegli
| Decision Date | 12 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 83,83 |
| Citation | 64 L.Ed. 281,251 U.S. 315,40 S.Ct. 167 |
| Parties | WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. BOEGLI |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Rush Taggart and Francis Raymond Stark, both of New York City, Samuel O. Pickens, Charles W. Moores, and Robert Franklin Davidson, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Arthur W. Parry, of Ft. Wayne, Ind., for defendant in error.
The Telegraph Company challenged the right to subject it to a penalty fixed by a law of Indiana for failure to deliver promptly in that state a telegram sent there from a point in Illinois, on the ground that the Act of Congress of June 18, 1910 (36 Stat. 539, 545, c. 309), amending the Act to Regulate Commerce (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379), had deprived the state of all power in the premises. The court conceding that if the act of Congress dealt with the subject the state statute would be inoperative, imposed the penalty on the ground that the act of 1910 did not extend to that field. The correctness of this conclusion is the one controversy with which the arguments are concerned.
The proposition that the act of 1910 must be narrowly construed so as to preserve the reserved power of the state over the subject in hand, although it is admitted that that power is in its nature federal and may be exercised by the state only because of nonaction by Congress, is obviously too conflicting and unsound to require further notice. We therefore consider the statute in the light of its text and, if there be ambiguity, of its context, in order to give effect to the intent of Congress as manifested in its enactment.
As the result of doing so, we are of opinion that the provisions of the statute bringing telegraph companies under the Act to Regulate Commerce as well as placing them under the administrative control of the Interstate Commerce Commission so clearly establish the purpose of Congress to subject such companies to a uniform national rule as to cause it to be certain that there was no room thereafter for the exercise by the several states of power to regulate, by penalizing the negligent failure to deliver promptly, an interstate telegram and that the court below erred therefore in imposing the penalty fixed by the state statute.
We do not pursue the subject further since the effect of the act of 1910 in taking possession of the field was recently determined in exact accordance with the conclusion ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. United States
...an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field to the exclusion of state law. . . . . . . . In Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boegli, 251 U.S. 315, 40 S.Ct. 167, 64 L.Ed. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court held state law inapplicable to a question concerning the carrier's liability for neglige......
-
N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass'n, Inc. v. James
...Postal-Tel. Cable Co. v. Warren-Godwin Lumber Co. , 251 U.S. 27, 40 S.Ct. 69, 64 L.Ed. 118 (1919) and Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boegli , 251 U.S. 315, 40 S.Ct. 167, 64 L.Ed. 281 (1920) ); e.g. , GTE Serv. Corp. v. FCC , 474 F.2d 724, 730–31 (2d Cir. 1973) ("The courts, however, have uniform......
-
Philco Corporation v. Phillips Mfg. Co.
...as in Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Warren-Godwin Co., 251 U.S. 27, 31, 40 S.Ct. 69, 64 L.Ed. 118; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Boegli, 251 U.S. 315, 316, 40 S.Ct. 167, 64 L.Ed. 281, and O'Brien v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 1 Cir., 113 F.2d 539, 541, is only another way of stating the ......
-
Oench, Duhme Co v. Federal Deposit Ins Corporation
...825, L.R.A.1917A, 197; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 241 U.S. 485, 36 S.Ct. 630, 60 L.Ed. 1117; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Boegli, 251 U.S. 315, 40 S.Ct. 167, 64 L.Ed. 281; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co., 256 U.S. 566, 41 S.Ct. 584, 65 L.Ed. 1094; Western Union ......