W. Union Tel. Co. v. Czizek, 264 U.S. 281 (1924)

The plaintiff owned fifty shares of stock in the Idaho National Bank at Boise, Idaho. Miller, vice president of the bank, was buying the stock with a view to a merger. He talked with the plaintiff and told him that he would buy his stock and that they would have no difficulty in agreeing on the price. The plaintiff told this to Jones, an attorney at Boise, who owned fifteen shares, asked Jones to act for him, saying that they would sell their stock together, and told Miller that Jones would represent him. Later Miller called on Jones and at Miller’s request Jones, on November 30, 1917, wrote on a Western Union form—directing the Company to send, “ subject to the terms on p. 283back hereof”, the following telegram addressed to the plaintiff at 5767 Shafter Avenue, Oakland, California, where the plaintiff lived: “Miller advises Idaho National sold to Pacific offers me ninety dollars per share otherwise wait year and chances of liquidation says if fails to get two thirds stock liquidation will follow. Will you take ninety dollars per share for yours. I am inclined to accept offer for mine. Answer.” The form had been filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commission had approved the provisions and rates that it set forth. Among the terms on the back of the form were the following: “ To guard against mistakes or delays, the sender . . . should order it rep eate d , that is, telegraphed back to the originating office for comparison,” an additional half rate being charged. “ Unless otherwise indicated on its face, This is an unrepeate d tele - gram and paid for as such , in consideration whereof it is agreed ... 1. The Company shall not be liable for mistakes or delays in the transmission or delivery, or for nondelivery, of any unrepeated telegram, beyond the amount received for sending the same . . . 2. In any event the Company shall not be liable for damages for any mistakes or delays in the transmission or delivery, or for the nondelivery, of this telegram, whether caused by the negligence of its servants or otherwise, beyond the sum of fi fty doll ars , at which amount this telegram is hereby valued, unless a greater value is stated in writing hereon at the time the telegram is offered to the Company for transmission, and an additional sum paid or agreed to be paid based on such value equal to one-tenth of one per cent, thereof.”

This telegram was an unrepeated message of the class known as night letter, and was not specially valued or paid for upon a value in excess of $50. It was the duty of the receiving clerk, Margaret Brown, to indorse her p. 284initials, the filing time and the amount of toll received, and to place the message on the sending hook for transmission. By inadvertence, although a competent clerk, she put it in a file of earlier messages instead of upon the hook, and it was not sent. The next day Jones’s son inquired at the telegraph office for an answer and being told that there was none, asked if they had sent the telegram and was answered yes. On December 3 he asked again and was told that the plaintiff had received the message. Miller was ready and willing to buy the stock until December 5, 1917, and the plaintiff testified that he would have sold if he had received the telegram. Later the stock became worthless. The District Court found that there was no gross negligence but the Circuit Court of Appeals distinguished between a failure to take the first step toward transmission and some later neglect, held that the failure was not and, as a matter of public policy, could not be within the protection of the terms that we have stated and held the company liable for $4,500 with interest at seven per cent, from June 18, 1918, on which day the plaintiff made a demand.

The plaintiff, the respondent here, does not deny that he is bound by the terms that we have recited. That was assumed below and is established law. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co., 256 U. S. 566. Those terms apply as definitely to a nondelivery in consequence of a neglect or oversight at the first office as at any other. The moment that the message is received the contract attaches along with the responsibility, and the transit begins. We can perceive no legal distinction between that moment and the next when the message is handed to a transmitting clerk, or that on which a copy is given to a boy at the further end. The hand that holds the paper technically is that of the Company, but no more at the beginning than at the end, and as in fact it is that of servants, reasonable self-protection is allowed to the p. 285master against their neglects. One such self-protection sanctioned by the decisions is a valuation of the message, with liberty to the sender to fix a higher value on paying more for it. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491. The plaintiff finds no difficulty in valuing the message now. It was at least equally possible to value it when it was sent. See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co., 256 U. S. 566, 574; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Warren-Godwin Lumber Co., 251 U. S. 27.

The Court of Industrial Relations Act was approved January 23, 1920. Laws of Kansas, 1920, Special Session, p. 288c. 29. The purpose of the statute is to ensure continuity of operation in coal mining and other businesses declared to be affected with a public interest.1 The means provided for accomplishing this is a system of compulsory arbitration of industrial disputes. The instrument is the so-called industrial court. Upon it is conferred power to investigate all matters involved in such controversies; to make findings thereon; to issue such orders as it may deem needful, fixing the wages to be paid, the hours of work, the rules for work, and the working and living conditions. The provisions in aid of the enforcement of this system are both comprehensive and detailed. The employer is prohibited, among other things, from limiting or ceasing operations with a view to defeating the purpose of the statute. Likewise, every association of persons (e. g., trade unions) is prohibited from acting to that end. In effect, strikes and lockouts, the boycott and picketing, are made unlawful. Any person violating any provision of the statute, or any order of the so-called court, is declared guilty of a misdemeanor. Some of the provisions of the act were considered in Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, and in Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U. S. 522.

Section 19 provides that any officer of a union of workmen engaged in an industry within the provisions of the act, who shall wilfully use the power incident to his official position to influence any other person to violate any provision of the statute or any valid order of the Court of p. 289Industrial Relations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by imprisonment at hard labor, not to exceed two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Under this section an information was filed against Dorchy, a union official, for calling a strike in a coal mine. He was found guilty. The judgment entered was affirmed by the highest court of the State, 112 Kans. 235; and a rehearing was denied. The case is here on writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code as amended. It is contended that § 19 is void, because it prohibits strikes; and that to do so is denial of the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The task of determining the intention of the state legislature in this respect, like the usual function of interpreting a state statute, rests primarily upon the state court. Its decision as to the severability of a provision is conclusive upon this Court. Gatewood v. North Carolina, 203 U. S. 531, 543; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, 366; p. 291Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty Co., 245 U. S. 288, 290. In cases coming from the lower federal courts, such questions of severability, if there is no controlling state decision, must be determined by this Court. Compare Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368, 381; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Garrett, 231 U. S. 298, 311. In cases coming from the state courts, this Court, in the absence of a controlling state decision, may, in passing upon the claim under the federal law, decide, also, the question of severability. But it is not obliged to do so. The situation may be such as to make it appropriate to leave the determination of the question to the state court. We think that course should be followed in this case.