Western Union Telegraph Co. v. O. H. Wright & Co.

84 So. 604, 79 Fla. 600
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 24, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 84 So. 604 (Western Union Telegraph Co. v. O. H. Wright & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. O. H. Wright & Co., 84 So. 604, 79 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1920).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In an action brought in the Civil Court of Record for Duval- County to recover damages resulting from an error in an unrepeated interstate message, a demurrer was sustained to a plea setting up a contract limiting recovery, for mistakes in transmission of unrepeated messages to the amount received therefor, and judgment was awarded for a larger amount, On writ of error to the Circuit Court, the judgment was affirmed. A writ of certiorari' was granted by this court.

T!hé Supreme Court of the United States has held that “Congress has so far occupied the entire field of- the interstate business of telegraph companies by enacting the [601]*601provisions of the Act of June 18, 1910, respecting interstate telegraph rates, as to exclude State action invalidating a contract limiting the liability of a telegraph company for error in sending an unrepeated interstate message to the refunding of the price paid for the transmission of the message.” Postal, Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Warren-Godwin Lumber Co., U. S. , Sup. Ct. Rep.

, January 1, 1920, L. R. A. Ed; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boegli, U. S. , Sup. Ct. Rep. , January 12, 1920, L. R, A. Ed.

The decisions in the above cases show the invalidity of the judgment of the Civil Court of Record which was affirmed by the Circuit Court. The affirming judgment of the Circuit Court is quashed. State v. Live Oak, P. & G. R. Co., 70 Fla. 564, 70 South. Rep. 550; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Ray, 52 Fla. 634, 42 South. Rep. 714; Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Boy, 34 Fla. 389, 16 South. Rep. 290; Mernaugh v. City of Orlando, 41 Fla, 433, 27 South. Rep. 34; Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 South. Rep. 922; Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84, 66 South. Rep. 421.

It is so ordered.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and West, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., not participating.

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

Related

Dresner v. City of Tallahassee
164 So. 2d 208 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1964)
Lorenzo v. Murphy
32 So. 2d 421 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
Stanley v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
23 F. Supp. 674 (S.D. Florida, 1938)
American Railway Express Co. v. Weatherford
98 So. 820 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Haile v. Bullock
91 So. 683 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Coe-Mortimer Co. v. State
88 So. 475 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 So. 604, 79 Fla. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-union-telegraph-co-v-o-h-wright-co-fla-1920.