BURLESON, POSTMASTER GENERAL,
v.
DEMPCY ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.
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.
The Postmaster General sued to enforce telegraph rates he had set for services provided over lines operated by the federal government during wartime, while Illinois's Public Utilities Commission sought to enjoin him from charging rates higher than those approved by the state. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and held that the federal government was not bound by state-set intrastate telegraph rates when operating the lines under federal authority, applying the same legal principle established in Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
In a suit commenced by the Postmaster General, the members of the Public Utilities Commission of Illinois and the Attorney General of that State filed a cross-bill to enjoin the Postmaster General from enforcing telgraph rates which he had directed to be charged for services rendered over lines which were in the possession, under the control, and being operated by the United States under authority of the resolution of Congress and the proclamation of the President considered in Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, this day announced, ante, 163.
The theory of thé cross-bill was that the United States in operating the lines was governed as to intrastate rates by state authority and could not lawfully exact for such services rendered any charges but those which the State sanctioned. The court below upheld this view and therefore permanently enjoined the Postmaster General from charging any other than the state rates for the intrastate business. The case is before us on appeal from the decree to that effect.
As there is no difference in legal principle as to the question of power between the Dakota Central Telephone Case and this, it follows that the decision in that .case is conclusive here and makes certain the error committed below. In this case, therefore, as in that, as a decree of reversal will dispose of every issue in the case, it follows that the decree below must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
And it is so ordered.
Mr. Justice -Brandéis dissents..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1892)
- Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Wis., 238 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1915)