Illinois Commission Co. v. Cleveland Tel. Co.

119 F. 301, 56 C.C.A. 205, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided October 28, 1902·No. No. 846·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge,

after stating the facts, as above, delivered the opinion of the Court:

The real questions presented on this appeal we decided in National Telegraph News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 119 Fed. 294. Neither in this case, nor in the one cited, do we decide that the Telegraph Company is not a common carrier of news; that any proposing patron may not have the news upon conforming to the regulations, and the payment of charges, proffered to other patrons; or that the Board of Trade may make an exclusive contract for the transmission of news. None of these questions are material to the judgment to which we have come. The appellants in neither case have brought themselves into a situation where they may claim the service of the Telegraph Company as common carrier, or where they may deny to the Board of Trade its right to make the contract referred to. In this state of the record we are content, on the reasoning of National Telegraph News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., to affirm the order below.

Affirmed.

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

Illinois Commission Co. v. Cleveland Tel. Co., 119 F. 301, 56 C.C.A. 205, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669 (7th Cir. 1902).

119 F. 301 (Illinois Commission Co. v. Cleveland Tel. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

F. W. Dodge Corp. v. Comstock
140 Misc. 105 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
Meyer v. Hurwitz
5 F.2d 370 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1925)
Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange
296 F. 61 (Second Circuit, 1923)
Associated Press v. International News Service
245 F. 244 (Second Circuit, 1917)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster
224 Mass. 365 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co.
215 F. 692 (Seventh Circuit, 1914)
Fonotipia Ltd. v. Bradley
171 F. 951 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1909)
Chamber of Commerce v. Wells
111 N.W. 157 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)
Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. McDearmott Commission Co.
143 F. 188 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1906)
Sullivan v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
123 F. 411 (Seventh Circuit, 1903)