MACLEOD ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MASSACHUSETTS,
v.
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY
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 Massachusetts Public Service Commission sought to enforce state-established telephone rates and prevent the Postmaster General's federally-set rates from taking effect during federal control of telephone operations. The Supreme Court affirmed the state court's dismissal, holding that the suit was effectively against the United States and that the Postmaster General possessed federal authority to establish rates that could override state-mandated rates, even when doing so conflicted with state regulation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The petitioners, composing the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Massachusetts, filed their bill against the respondent to compel it to enforce certain telephone rates for intrastate business established in conformity to the state law and to forbid the putting into effect of conflicting rates fixed by the Postmaster General in a schedule by him established and the enforcement of which he had ordered.
On the petition and answers the case was reserved for the consideration of the Supreme Judicial Court where it was finally decided. The court in a lucid opinion, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Rugg, having after full consideration reached the conclusion that the Postmaster General was empowered by the law of the United States to fix the schedule of rates complained of and that the Telephone Company was authorized by such law to put in effect and enforce such rates even though in doing so-the rate established by the Public Service Commission of the State was disregarded, held that the suit was virtually one against the United States which the court was without power to entertain and entered a decree of dismissal for want of jurisdiction. But the form of the decree thus entered affects in no way the control and decisive result, upon every issue in the case, of the ruling this day announced in Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South-Dakota, ante, 163. It follows therefore that in this case our decree must be and is one of affirmance.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brandéis dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp. & the United States, 258 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1922)