Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

4254 U. S. 623)

No. 487. NORTHERN COAL COMPANY, petitioner, v. BOSTON, CAPE COD & NEW YORK CANAL COMPANY. Oct. 11, 1920. For opinions below, see Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co. v. T. A. Scott Co., 265 Fed. 538; White Oak Transp. Co. v. Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co., 267 Fed. 176. Mr. John G. Palfrey, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.

[blocks in formation]

(254 U. S. 660)

No. 50. The ATLANTIC COAST ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al. Oct. 15, 1920. For opinion below, see 92 N. J. Law, 168, 104 Atl. 218. Mr. Robert H. McCarter, of Newark, N. J., for plaintiff in error. Mr. I Edward Herrmann, of Jersey City, N. J., for defendant in error. In error to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the nineteenth rule.

(254 U. S. 14)

ed upon a consideration of the situation existing in 1846 and accurately described by the Meade chart, more specifically hereinafter referred to.

3. "That said boundary line runs from a point midway between Rice's Point and Connor's Point through the middle of Lower St. Louis Bay to and with the deep channel leading to Upper St. Louis Bay and to a point therein immediately south of the southern extremity of Grassy Point, thence westward along the most direct course through water not less than eight feet deep eastward of Fisherman's Island, as indicated by the red trace A, B, C, on Minnesota's Exhibit No. 1 (said Exhibit 1 being the Meade chart offered and received in evidence in this suit and now a part of the record), approximately one mile to the deep channel and immediately west of the bar therein, thence with such channel north and west of Big Island up stream to the 'Falls."'"

4. A commission, consisting of Samuel S. Gannett, of Washington, D. C., William B. Patton, of Duluth, Minnesota, and John G. D. Mack, of Madison, Wisconsin, competent persons, is here and now appointed by the court to run, locate and designate the boundary line between said states along that portion of said bay and river heretofore described in this decree, and to locate said boundary line by proper monuments, courses and distances, as fixed by the court in this decree.

5. Before entering upon the discharge of their duties each of said commissioners shall be duly sworn to perform faithfully, impartially, and without prejudice or bias, the duties herein imposed, said oaths to be taken before the clerk of this court or before the clerk of any District Court of the United States or before an officer authorized by law to administer an oath in the state of Minnesota or the state of Wisconsin, and returned with their report. Said commission is authorized and empowered to make examination of the territory in question and to adopt all ordinary and legitimate methods of survey in the designation of the true location of said boundary line fixed by the decree, to examine and consider carefully the opinion of this court delivered on March 8, 1920, the said Minnesota's Exhibit 1, being the Meade chart. or a certified copy thereof; and said commission shall do all other matters necessary to enable it to discharge its duties and to obtain the end to be accomplished conformably to this de

cree.

No. 13, Original. The STATE OF MINNESOTA, complainant, v. The STATE OF WISCONSIN. Oct. 11, 1920. Messrs. Lyndon A. Smith, of St. Paul, Minn., Charles R. Pierce, of Washington, D. C., and Clifford L. Hilton and Frank B. Kellogg, both of St. Paul, Minn., H. B. Fryberger and William D. Bailey, both of Duluth, Minn., and C. Louis Weeks, of 6. It is further ordered that should any vaSt. Paul, Minn., for the State of Minnesota. cancy or vacancies occur in said board of comMessrs. Walter C. Owen, of Maiden Rock, Wis.,missioners by reason of death, refusal to act, Walter Drew, of Milwaukee, Wis., M. B. Ol- or inability to perform the duties required by brich, of Madison, Wis., and John J. Blaine, this decree, the Chief Justice of this court is of Boscobel, Wis., for the State of Wisconsin. thereby authorized and empowered to appoint another commissioner or commissioners to supThe motion to appoint commissioners to run ply such vacancy or vacancies; the Chief Justice the boundary line between the respective acting upon such information in the premises States, pursuant to the order (252 U. S. 273, as may be satisfactory to him. 40 Sup. Ct. 313, 64 L. Ed. 558,) entered herein on March 8, 1920, is granted, and, in pursuance of the stipulation of counsel for the respective parties, Mr. Samuel S. Gannett, of Washington, D. C., Mr. William D. Patton, of Duluth, Minnesota, and Mr. G. D. Mack, of Madison, Wisconsin, are hereby appointed commissioners to run and mark the boundary line between the respective States.

The decree in its entirety is as follows:
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as fol-

lows:

1. That the true boundary line between the complainant and the defendant in and through Lower St. Louis Bay, Upper St. Louis Bay, and the St. Louis river, from Upper St. Louis Bay to the "Falls" in the said river, is as hereinafter specified.

2. That said boundary line must be ascertain

7. It is further ordered that said commissioners proceed with all convenient dispatch to discharge their duties conformably to this decree. 8. It is further ordered that the clerk of this court shall forward at once to the Governor of each of said states of Minnesota and Wisconsin and to each of the commissioners hereby appointed a copy of this decree and of the opinion of this court delivered herein March 8, 1920, duly authenticated.

9. Said commissioners shall make a report of their proceedings under this decree as soon as practicable on or before the 1st day of May, 1921, and shall return with their report an itemized statement of services performed and expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

10. All other matters are reserved until the coming in of said report or until such time as matters pertaining to this cause shall be properly presented to this court for its consideration.

(254 U. S. 17)

(41 Sup.Ct.)

SPEIGHT.

(Argued Oct. 12, 1920. Decided Oct. 25,

1920.) No. 241.

The

message was sent in interstate commerce, and WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. that therefore a suit could not be maintained for mental suffering alone. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612, 36 Sup. Ct. 410, 60 L. Ed. 825, L. R. A. 1917A, 197. jury found that the message was sent out of North Carolina into Virginia for the purpose of fraudulently evading liability under the law of North Carolina and gave the plaintiff a verdict. The presiding judge then set the verdict aside "as a matter of law" and ordered a nonsuit. But on appeal the Supreme Court of the State set aside the nonsuit and directed that a judgment be entered on the verdict.

1. Commerce 28-Transmission of telegram is interstate, though it passes through other state unnecessarily.

The course by which a message was transmitted in the ordinary course of business by a telegraph company between two points within the state determines its character as an interstate or intrastate transaction, and it is interstate where it actually was sent through a portion of another state, though it was not necessary to send it across the state boundaries. 2. Telegraphs and telephones 66(1)-Burden is on plaintiff to show interstate transmission was to evade liability.

[ocr errors]

[1] We are of opinion that the judge presiding at the trial was right and that the Supreme Court was wrong. Even if there had been any duty on the part of the Telegraph Company to confine the transmission to North Carolina, it did not do so. The transmission If the motive of a telegraph company in of a message through two states is interstate transmitting a message between two points in commerce as a matter of fact. Hanley v. the same state by way of points outside the Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 187 U. S. 617, state is material, the burden is on plaintiff, 23 Sup. Ct. 214, 47 L. Ed. 333. The fact must seeking to recover as for an intrastate mes-be tested by the actual transaction. Kirmeysage, to prove that the company's practice was for the purpose of evading the jurisdiction of er v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 568, 572, 35 Sup. Ct.

the state.

419, 59 L. Ed. 721.

[2] As the line was arranged and had been

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court arranged for many years, ever since Roanoke of the State of North Carolina. Rapids had been an independent office, Rich

Action by Addie Speight against the Western Union Telegraph Company. A nonsuit directed by the presiding judge was set aside by the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina (178 N. C. 146, 100 S. E. 351), and defendant brings certiorari, Reversed.

See, also, 252 U. S. 576, 40 Sup. Ct. 344, 64

L. Ed. 724.

Messrs. Rush Taggart, of New York City, Charles W. Tillett, of Charlotte, N. C., and Francis R. Stark, of New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. Murray Allen, of Raleigh, N. C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opin

ion of the Court.

18

*19

mond was the relay point from *Greenville to the latter place. The message went through Weldon, North Carolina, and was telegraphed back from Richmond, as Weldon business also was. It would have been possible, physically, to send direct from Weldon but would have required a rearrangement of the wires and more operators. The course adopted was more convenient and less expensive for the Company and there was nothing to show motives except the facts. As things were, the message was sent in the quickest way. The court below did not rely primarily upon the finding of the jury as to the purpose of the arrangement but held that when as here the termini were in

the same State the business was intrastate unless it was necessary to cross the territory This is a suit brought in a state court by of another State in order to reach the final the respondent against the petitioner, the point. This, as we have said, is not the law. Telegraph Company, to re*cover for mental It did however lay down that the burden suffering caused by a mistake in delivering a was on the Company to show that what was telegraphic message. The message handed to done "was not done to evade the jurisdiction the defendant was "Father died this morn- of the State." If the motive were material, ing. Funeral tomorrow, 10:10 a. m.," and was as to which we express no opinion, this again dated January 24. As delivered to the plain- is a mistake. The burden was on the plainMoreover the motiff on January 24 it was dated January 23 tiff to make out her case. and thus caused her to fail to attend the tive would not have made the business intrafuneral which otherwise she would have state. If the mode of transmission adopted done. The message was from Greenville, North Carolina, to Rosemary in the same State and was transmitted from Greenville through Richmond, Virginia, and Norfolk, to Roanoke Rapids, the delivery point for Rosemary. This seems to have been the route ordinarily used by the Company for years, and the Company defends on the ground that the

had been unreasonable as against the plain-
tiff, a different question would arise, but in
that case the liability, if it existed, would not
be a liability for an intrastate transaction
that never took place but for the unwarranted
conduct and the resulting loss.
Judgment reversed.

Mr. Justice PITNEY concurs in the result.

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

[blocks in formation]

from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. See, also, 253 U. S. 496, 40 Sup. Ct. 587, 64 L. Ed. 1031. Mary L. Greer Conklin, in pro per.

No. 23, original. The STATE OF OKLA-LISHING COMPANY. Oct. 18, 1920. Appeal HOMA, Complainant, v. The STATE OF TEXAS. Oct. 18, 1920. See, also, 40 Sup. Ct. 585. Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma. Messrs. C. W. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., for the State of Texas.

[blocks in formation]

(254 U. S. 608)

No. 192. Mary L. Greer CONKLIN, appellant, v. George H. CONKLIN et al. Oct. 18, 1920. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. Mary L. Greer Conklin, in pro. per. Messrs. William H. Barrett, Bryan Cumming, and C. Henry Cohen, all of Augusta, Ga., for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71,

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Produce Co., 238 U. S. 140, 142, 35 Sup. Ct. 828, 59 L. Ed. 1238; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

(254 U. 8. 624)

(254 U. S. 642)

No. 521. UNION TOOL COMPANY, peti- No. 533. The EGRY REGISTER COMtioner, v. Elihu C. WILSON. Oct. 18, 1920. For opinion below, see Wilson v. Union Tool Co., 265 Fed. 669. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.

(254 U. S. 642)

No. 522. EMPIRE VOTING MACHINE COMPANY, petitioner, v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al. Oct. 18, 1920. For opinion below, see 267 Fed. 162. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit denied.

PANY, petitioner, v. The STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY. Oct. 25, 1920. For opinion below, see 267 Fed. 186. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

(254 U. S. 642)

No. 534. Rene ARBIB, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 25, 1920. For opinion below, see Feathers of Wild Birds V. United States, 267 Fed. 964. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

(254 U. S. 661)

ror.

No. 64. Louis B. NAGLER, plaintiff in erv. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 20, 1920. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin. See, also, United States v. Nagler, 252 Fed. 217. Messrs. Gilbert E. Roe, of New York City, and Herman L. Ekern, of Madison, Wis., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for the United States. Judgment reversed, on confession of error and cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with law, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Frierson for the defendant in error.

No. 375. H. W. CARGILL, as assessor, etc., et al., petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES ex rel. Frank PIERCE. Oct. 25, 1920. For opinion below, see United States v. Cargill, 263 Fed. 856. Mr. U. S. Bratton, of Little Rock, Ark., for petitioners. Motion to dismiss for want of prosecution denied without prejudice.

(254 U. S. 645)

[blocks in formation]

(254 U. S. 646)

No. 381. Andrew P. LOCKHART, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 25, 1920. For opinion below, see 264 Fed. 14. No. 538. HARTMAN-BLANCHARD COMMessrs. C. S. Littleton and Jesse M. Littleton, PANY, petitioner, v. Kittie TEN EYCK et al. both of Chattanooga, Tenn., for petitioner. Oct. 25, 1920. For opinion below, see 267 The Attorney General, for the United States. | Fed. 974. Petition for a writ of certiorari to Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United the United States Circuit Court of Appeals States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth for the Second Circuit denied.

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsett »