WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
O. H. WRIGHT & COMPANY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Western Union sought to enforce a contractual limitation on its liability for errors in unrepeated interstate telegraph messages. The Florida Supreme Court held that federal law preempted state law on this issue, and reversed the lower court's judgment that had awarded damages exceeding the contract's limitation.
Federal law, specifically the Act of June 18, 1910 regulating interstate telegraph rates, preempts state law and precludes states from invalidating contractual limitations on telegraph company liability for errors in unrepeated interstate messages. The contractual limitation to refunding the price paid for transmission is valid and enforceable.
“Congress has so far occupied the entire field of the interstate business of telegraph companies by enacting the provisions of the Act of June 18, 1910, respecting interstate telegraph rates, as to exclude State action invalidating a contract limiting the liability of a telegraph company for error in sending an unrepeated interstate message to the refunding of the price paid for the transmission of the message.”
Establishes the federal preemption doctrine that invalidates state court judgments against contractual limitations on telegraph liability
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWestern Union sent an unrepeated interstate message for O. H. Wright & Company. An error occurred in transmission. The contract between the parties li…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
In an action brought in the Civil Court of Record for Duval-County to recover damages resulting from an error in an unrepeated interstate message, a demurrer was sustained to a plea setting up a contract limiting recovery, for mistakes in transmission of unrepeated messages to the amount received therefor, and judgment was awarded for a larger amount, On writ of error to the Circuit Court, the judgment was affirmed. A writ of certiorari' was granted by this court.
T!hé Supreme Court of the United States has held that “Congress has so far occupied the entire field of-the interstate business of telegraph companies by enacting the provisions of the Act of June 18, 1910, respecting interstate telegraph rates, as to exclude State action invalidating a contract limiting the liability of a telegraph company for error in sending an unrepeated interstate message to the refunding of the price paid for the transmission of the message.” Postal, Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Warren-Godwin Lumber Co., U. S. , Sup. Ct. Rep.
, January 1, 1920, L. R. A. Ed; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boegli, U. S. , Sup. Ct. Rep. , January 12, 1920, L. R, A. Ed.
The decisions in the above cases show the invalidity of the judgment of the Civil Court of Record which was affirmed by the Circuit Court. The affirming judgment of the Circuit Court is quashed. State v. Live Oak, P. & G. R. Co., 70 Fla. 564, 70 South. Rep. 550; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Ray, 52 Fla. 634, 42 South. Rep. 714; Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Boy, 34 Fla. 389, 16 South. Rep. 290; Mernaugh v. City of Orlando, 41 Fla, 433, 27 South. Rep. 34; Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 South. Rep. 922; Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84, 66 South. Rep. 421.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and West, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Weatherford, 86 Fla. 626 (Fla. 1924)…Barnett v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523, of matters that may be presented by bill of exceptions in line with prior and subsequent decisions of this court. See Haile v. Bullock, 83 Fla. 538, 91 South. Rep. 683; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wright, 79 Fla. 600, 84 South. Rep. 604; Holmberg v. Toomer, 78 Fla. 116, 82 South. Rep. 620; First Nat. Bank of Gainesville v. Gibbs, [*633] 78 Fla. 118, 82 South. Rep. 618; Harrison v. Frink, 75 Fla. 22, 77 South. Rep. 663; Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84. The Federa…
-
Dresner v. City OF Tallahassee, 164 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1964)…ari. Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84, 66 So. 421. More directly in response to the instant inquiry we have held that state action may be measured by federal constitutional standards in a certiorari proceeding'. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Wright, 79 Fla. 600, 84 So. 604. Summarizing our affirmative response to questions 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d), our opinion is that the instant judgment of the Circuit Court could have been tested by the federal constitutional claims in the Florida District Court of Appeal pr…
-
Haile v. Bullock, 83 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1922)…ndamental errors, in applying the law, or the entire absence of essential evidence with resulting material injury, may be ground for quashing a judgment on certiorari in appropriate proceedings duly taken. See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wright & Co., 79 Fla. 600, 84 South. Rep. 604; 5 R. C. L. 261. In this case a bill of exceptions was authenieated and filed in the trial court. The statute makes it a part of the record'in the cause, and on certiorari the record may be examined to determine whether the cour…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52 (Fla. 1913)
- Jacksonville v. Antone Boy, 34 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1894)
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Ray, 52 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1906)
- Mernaugh. v. City of Orlando, 41 Fla. 433 (Fla. 1899)
- State v. The Live Oak, 70 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1915)
- Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84 (Fla. 1914)