Housing Authority v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Housing Authority v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

183 S.E.2d 227, 124 Ga. App. 181, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 863

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 20, 1971

Docket45977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 S.E.2d 227 (Housing Authority v. Western Union Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Housing Authority v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 183 S.E.2d 227, 124 Ga. App. 181, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant argues that the tariff filed by the appellee is not just and reasonable as applied to the facts of this case. The appellant’s argument is answered in the negative in Gardner v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 231 F 405, 412, which states: "We are therefore of the opinion that Congress having taken possession of the field of interstate commerce by telegraph, the provision of the Constitution of Oklahoma relied upon has become inoperative for the purpose of striking down the regula-’ tion in question. Whether the regulation is a reasonable one or not is in our judgment a question for the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 230 U. S. 247 (33 SC 916, 57 LE 1472); Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155 (32 SC 648, 56 LE 1033, AC 1914A, 501); Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426 (27 SC 350, 51 LE 553, 9 AC 1075).”

The appellee’s liability is controlled by the tariff which it filed pursuant to Section 203 (a) of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The granting of the partial summary judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., Jordan, P. J., Hall, P. J., Eberhardt, Deen and Whitman, JJ., concur. Pannell and Evans, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant argues that the tariff filed by the appellee is not just and reasonable as applied to the facts of this case. The appellant’s argument is answered in the negative in Gardner v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 231 F 405, 412, which states: "We are therefore of the opinion that Congress having taken possession of the field of interstate commerce by telegraph, the provision of the Constitution of Oklahoma relied upon has become inoperative for the purpose of striking down the regula-’ tion in question. Whether the regulation is a reasonable one or not is in our judgment a question for the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 230 U. S. 247 (33 SC 916, 57 LE 1472); Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155 (32 SC 648, 56 LE 1033, AC 1914A, 501); Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426 (27 SC 350, 51 LE 553, 9 AC 1075).”

The appellee’s liability is controlled by the tariff which it filed pursuant to Section 203 (a) of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The granting of the partial summary judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., Jordan, P. J., Hall, P. J., Eberhardt, Deen and Whitman, JJ., concur. Pannell and Evans, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E.2d 227, 124 Ga. App. 181, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/housing-authority-v-western-union-telegraph-co-gactapp-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack