Western Union Telegraph Company v. Samuel Chiles
| Decision Date | 24 May 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 168,168 |
| Citation | 214 U.S. 274,29 S.Ct. 613,53 L.Ed. 994 |
| Parties | WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. SAMUEL CHILES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Francis Raymond Stark, Rush Taggart, Robert M. Hughes, and George H. Fearons for plaintiff in error.
Mr. W. D. Stoakley (by special leave) for defendant in error.
The defendant in error, a gunner in the Navy, was stationed on board the U. S. S. Abarenda, which was lying at the Norfolk Navy Yard. A telegram addressed to him aboard the ship was received for transmission at Richmond, Virginia, thence transmitted, so far as appears, with due dispatch, to Portsmouth, Virginia, which adjoins the Norfolk Navy Yard, and is the place to which telegrams directed to the navy yard are commonly sent. The message was never received by the defendant in error. He brought this action in the court of hustings of the city of Portsmouth against the plaintiff in error, the telegraph company, to recover a penalty imposed by the laws of Virginia. The Virginia Code 1904, pp. 696, 697, after providing for a penalty for failure duly to transmit a message, contains the following provision:
'(6) . . .
'It shall be the duty of every telegraph company, upon the arrival of a dispatch or message at the point to which it is to be transmitted, to cause the same to be forwarded by a messenger to the person to whom the same is addressed, or his agent, and, upon the payment of any charges due on this dispatch or message, to deliver it; provided, such person or agent reside within the city or incorporated town in which such station is, or that at such point the regulations of the company require such delivery.
The plaintiff's declaration contained two counts: the first, for failure to transmit the telegram in conformity with the law of Virginia; and the second, for failure to deliver it in accordance with the part of the law just quoted. As there was no proof in support of the first count, and it was apparently not submitted to the jury at the trial, it may pass out of view.
The second count, after alleging the receipt of the message at the point of origin, and its transmission, and receipt at the office at Portsmouth, avers that it was the duty of the telegraph company to deliver it to the plaintiff on the U. S. S. Abarenda at the navy yard as promptly as practicable, and that the defendant failed to perform its duty in that regard, wherefore it became indebted to the plaintiff for the amount of the statutory penalty. There was a demurrer to the declaration, and one of the reasons alleged was 'that the place at which the message was to be delivered was on board a government vessel, at a yard which is under the jurisdiction and control of the United States, and neither the state nor this honorable court has jurisdiction to impose any penalty for failure to deliver a message at such place.' The demurrer was overruled, and the case was tried before a jury. There was testimony in behalf of the defendant that, seasonably after the message was received at Portsmouth, it was intrusted to a messenger boy for delivery to the plaintiff on board the ship; that it was taken to the gangway of the ship, and there, in accordance with the practice in such cases, delivered to the man on duty at that place, who receipted for it. With the weight of this testimony we have no concern. It also appeared that the message never reached the plaintiff. The defendant requested the presiding judge to instruct the jury, in substance that if the default in delivery occurred within the limits of the territory of the Norfolk Navy Yard, plaintiff could not recover by virtue of the Virginia law, which had no authority within those limits. The court declined, under exception, to give this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes Transp. v. United States
...Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture of California, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628, 87 L.Ed. 761; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, 214 U.S. 274, 29 S.Ct. 613, 53 L.Ed. 994. 11 Standard Oil Co. v. People of State of California, 291 U.S. 242, 54 S.Ct. 381, 78 L.Ed. 775; in Ralph Sollitt......
-
State of Washington v. Dawson Co Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California v. James Rolph Co
...995, 29 L. Ed. 264; Chicago & Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U. S. 542, 5 Sup. Ct. 1005, 29 L. Ed. 270; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chiles, 214 U. S. 274, 29 Sup. Ct. 613, 53 L. Ed. 994; Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343, 38 Sup. Ct. 323, 62 L. Ed. 763. 16 Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U. S.......
-
Adams v. Londeree
...Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture of California, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628, 87 L.Ed. 761; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, 214 U.S. 274, 29 S.Ct. 613, 53 L.Ed. 994; Renner v. Bennett, 21 Ohio St. 431; Divine v. Unaka National Bank, 125 Tenn. 98, 140 S.W. 747, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 5......
-
Atkinson v. State Tax Commission
... ... Standard Dredging Company, 224 U.S. 362, 32 S.Ct. 499, ... 502, 56 ... that, upon admission of states into the Union, the ... 'administration and disposition ... "A ... navy yard ( Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chiles, 214 ... U.S ... ...
-
Exclusive Legislation Does Not Mean Exclusive Jurisdiction-state-court Jurisdiction Over Civil Actions Arising Upon Federal Enclaves
...v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647 (1930) (holding that Arkansas personal property tax did not apply on the enclave); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chiles, 214 U.S. 274 (1909) (holding that the Virginia penalty for failing to deliver a telegram did not apply to failure to deliver a telegram on the enclave);......