Supreme Court of the United States, 1919

MacLeod v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 2, 1919 · White, Brandéis

250 U.S. 195; 39 S. Ct. 511; 63 L. Ed. 934; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1732 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. William Harold Hitchcock, Assistant Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with whom Mr. Henry C. Attwill, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was on the brief, for petitioners:, The Solicitor General for respondent. See ante, 164., Mr. William I. Schaffer, Attorney General of the ^Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Bernard J. Myers, Deputy Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by leave of court, filed a brief as amici curios, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania., Mr. Charles E. Elmquist, by leave of court, filed a brief as amicus curice, on behalf of thirty-seven States and the National Association of Railway and Utilities Commissioners., Mr. John G. Price, Attorney General of the State of Ohio, by leave of court, filed a brief as. amicus curice, on behalf of the State of Ohio., Mr. Albert C. Ritchie, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, by leave of court, filed a brief as amicus curice, on behalf of the State of Maryland.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Hines v. Dahn (8th Cir. 1920)
Halloran v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (Vt. 1921)
State ex rel. Cities of Seattle & Tacoma v. Public Service Commission (Wash. 1920)
State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. (Minn. 1919)
Haubert v. Baltimore & O. R. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1919)
United States v. Minery (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1919)
Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1919)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Me. 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 *199 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.