WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY
v.
BROWN

U.S. | 1914-06-22
No. 355
234 U.S. 542 Supreme Court of the United States (1914) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 58 L. Ed. 1457 · 34 S. Ct. 955 · 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1106 · SCDB 1913-065
Cited by 82 cases

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.

Synopsis

Western Union Telegraph Company failed to deliver a telegram notifying the plaintiff of her sister's death in South Carolina, and South Carolina allowed her to recover $750 for mental anguish under a state statute that imposed liability based on the negligent conduct occurring in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a tort is committed in one state, recovery in another state is limited to the liability imposed by the law of the place where the tort occurred, and that South Carolina's attempt to impose greater liability based on conduct outside its jurisdiction violated principles of federalism and interstate commerce.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of tort brought by the party to whom a telegraphic message was addressed. The message was delivered to the Company in South Carolina, addressed to the plaintiff in Washington, D. C., and read “Come at once. Your sister died this morning.’ It was forwarded without delay to Washington; but there, through negligence as the jury found, was not delivered. The declaration alleges that the failure caused the plaintiff to miss attending her sister’s funeral in South Carolina, and subjected the plaintiff to mental anguish, which of itself is made a cause of action by a statute of South Carolina. Civil Code, 1902, § 2223. The defendants in error state that, the action was brought under this section. There was a trial at which, by the instructions to the jury, a recovery was allowed under the act for the negligence in Washington irrespective of the law prevailing here.

The jury found a verdict for $750, which was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State. 92 So. Car.

354. The plaintiff in error saved its rights under the Constitution of the United States (so plainly that it is not necessary to discuss the matter) and brought the case here.

Whatever variations of opinion and practice there may have been, it is established as the law of this court that when a person recovers in one jurisdiction for a tort committed in another he does so on the ground of an obligation incurred at the place of the tort that accompanies the person of the defendant elsewhere, and that is not only the ground but the measure of the maximum recovery. Slater v. Mexican National R. R. Co., 194 U. S. 120, 126. Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U. S. 473, 478, 480. (A limitation of liability may stand on different grounds. The Titanic, 233 U. S. 718.) The injustice of imposing a greater liability than that created by the law governing the conduct of the parties at the time of the act or omission complained of is obvious; and when a State attempts in this manner to affect conduct outside its jurisdiction or the consequences of such conduct, and to infringe upon the power of the United States, it must fail. The principle would be illustrated by supposing a direct clash between the state and Federal statutes, but it is the same whenever the State undertakes to go beyond its juridiction into territory where the United States has exclusive control. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, 214 U. S. 274; see also Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Commercial Milling Co., 218 U. S. 406, 416.

What we have said is enough to dispose of the case. But the act also is objectionable in its aspect of an attempt to regulate commerce among the States. That is, as construed, it attempts to determine the conduct required of the telegraph company in transmitting a message from one State to another or to this District by determining the consequences of not pursuing such conduct, and in that way encounters Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, a decision in no way qualified by Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Commercial Milling Co., 218 U. S. 406.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (27 total)

  • Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Indus. Accident Comm'n of Cal., 294 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1935)
    …Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 136; compare Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U. S. 389, 397-400. While similar power to control the legal consequences of a tortious act committed elsewhere has been denied, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542, 547; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, 214 U. S. 274, 278; compare Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Commercial Milling Co., 218 U. S. 406, the liability under workmen’s compensation acts is not for a tort. It is imposed as an incident of the emp…
  • Bradford Elec. Light Co., Inc. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1932)
    …y. Co. v. Sowers, 213 U. S. 55; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U. S. 386; Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U. S. 611; see Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U. S. 412, 415, 416; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542, 547. It is true that in this case the status of employer and employe, terminable at will, was created by Vermont laws operating upon them while they were within that state. I assume that the fact of its creation there must be recognized elsewhere,…
    1 / 3
  • Deutsche Bank Filiale Nurnberg v. Humphrey, 272 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1926)
    …sting under the foreign law at the time when the suit is brought, and the obligation is not enlarged by the fact that the creditor happens to be able to catch his debtor here. Davis v. Mills, 194 U. S. 451. See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542. We may assume that when the Bank failed to pay on demand its liability was fixed at a certain number of marks both by the terms of the contract and by the German law — but we also assume that it was fixed in marks only, not at the extrinsic value t…

Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (20 total)

View all 20 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw