Document: 368 U.S. 71 82 S.Ct. 199 7 L.Ed.2d 139 WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellant,v.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, by Sidney GOTTLIEB, Escheator. No. 15. Argued Oct. 12, 1961. Decided Dec. 4, John G. Buchanan, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant. Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, N.Y., the State of New York, as amicus curiae. A. Jere Creskoff, Philadelphia, appellee. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 Pennsylvania law provides that 'any real or personal property within subject to control this Commonwealth * shall escheat Commonwealth' whenever it 'shall be without a rightful lawful owner,' 'remain unclaimed period seven successive years' 'the whereabouts such owner and remain unknown years.'1 These proceedings were begun under in state court certain obligations Western Union Telegraph Company—alleged 'property within' Pennsylvania—to pay sums money owing various people who had left monies more than years whose unknown. The facts stipulated. 2 is corporation chartered York with its principal place business State. It also does has offices all other States except Alaska Hawaii, District Columbia, foreign countries, was from 1916 1934 regulation I.C.C. since then F.C.C. In addition sending telegraphic messages throughout world-wide system, carries on order which commonly works like this. A sender goes office, fills out an application gives company clerk waits him together sent charges it. receipt given telegraph message transmitted company's office nearest payee directing payee. notified upon properly identifying himself negotiable draft, he can either endorse cash at once keep use future. If cannot located delivery notice, fails call draft 72 hours, destination notifies office. This original failure deliver makes refund, payments payees, way may cashed immediately kept 3 thousands transactions carried company, sometimes happens neither make payment nor refund sender. Similarly payees senders accept drafts fail them. For reason large due undelivered orders unpaid accumulate over bank accounts country. accumulation kind seeks here—specifically, amount undisbursed held arising bought States, chiefly States. 4 Union, while not claiming these itself, challenged Pennsylvania's right take ownership them itself.2 Among grounds urged judgment courts would protect multiple liability Its argument respect holders bound because service publication did not, two reasons, give jurisdiction: (1) doctrine Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, presence property, called 'res,' prerequisite constitute Pennsylvania, (2) notice case sufficient information afford likelihood actual meet process requirements. addition, there might escheats claimed they could made parties proceeding. Union's apprehensions later same funds buttressed court's finding already seized escheated part very here Pennsylvania. With reference Court Common Pleas said: 'We opportunity stating we do recognize York's authority money, but been done have no jurisdiction sum.' 73 Dauphin County Rep. 160, 173. Both trial Supreme rejected contentions declared escheated. 160; 74 49; 400 Pa. 337, 162 A.2d 617. Since record showed substantial questions individual owners power enter binding against subsequent noted probable jurisdiction. 365 801, 81 466, 5 459. We find unnecessary decide any adequacy validity claimants publication. view proceedings, far important question raised record—whether render bar escheating property. 6 claim debts demands states. See Standard Oil Co. Jersey, 341 428, 443, 822, 831, 1078. And our prior opinions recognized when purports based, here, State, holder deprived if compelled relinquish assurance will liable again another suit brought claimant first judgment. Anderson National Bank Luckett, 321 233, 242—243, 64 599, 604, 88 692; Security Savings People California, 263 282, 286—290, 44 108, 110—111, 68 301. Applying principle, doubt denied unless claim, including are 'within' therefore laws. But party proceeding party, and, course, claims cut off where heard party. Moreover, potential multi-state 'property' unlikely rem Therefore, protected judgment, need full faith credit rendered 565; Riley Trust Co., 315 343, 62 608, 86 885. true that, presented, said 'The having taken appellant valid (Standard Oil) state. Full Faith Credit Clause bars double escheat.' went point before us determination Jersey must await presentation here.' Here, unlike Oil, reality controversy between possibly many them, funds. 8 particularly aggressive, merely potential, actual, active persistent—best shown fact originally presented both brief oral presenting attention based their contacts separate phases multistate arose, including: residence payee, sender, delivered, fiscal agent drawn located. Arguments plausible doubtless support parts Union. area entirely possible every now participate even if, seems unlikely, assert enough itself justify contention require day force single debt thus law. 9 Our Constitution wisely provided controversies settled subjecting individuals companies affected those deprivation Article III, § cases situation material respects caused Texas Florida, 306 398, 59 563, 83 817. There four sought collect death taxes estate. tax depended domicile decedent, 'By each decedent only purposes *.' Id., 408, 569. Thus, one estate total greatly exceeded net value reason, said, risk loss substantial, exercised Under circumstances avoid ensuing suits rival legal duty.' 405, 567. invoke 10 While previously decided some apparent offing, closed door exercise Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Moore, 333 541, 682, 92 863, sustained custody conservator persons insured through policies issued resident York. doing so insurance involved alone escheat. careful problem what us. That passed upon.' 548, 686. Even though reservation took funds, leaving clear bring action recover time, dissents urging should found conflicting determined. Several divided upheld shares stock dividends stockholders employees Company. Jersey's rested, least part, domiciliary Again, however, justified conclusion saying States: 831. Later leave file alleging states travelers checks, outstanding 15 years, American Express Company, joint organized Answering, pointed controlling law3 disclaimed purpose law, refused 358 924, 79 310, 299. By act effective March 29, 1960,4 amended eliminating disclaimer strongly asserts new 11 rapidly multiplying laws, applying land tangible things recently moving into elusive wide-ranging field intangible problems great importance rights adversely escheats.5 imperative different intangibles forum want present consideration final authoritative determination. that. Whether hear ourselves particular cases, whether refer United Courts, determine. Cf. Massachusetts Missouri, 308 1, 18—20, 60 39, 43—44, 84 3. Nor we, attempt difficult taking time consider complicated interested States—along afforded hearing final, determination.6 plain courts, hearings. They here; attempted so. As result, judgments, cannot, comes necessary present, obligation twice, stand. When developed, dismissed case. 12 Accordingly, reversed, cause remanded further inconsistent opinion. ordered. 13 Reversed remanded. 14 Memorandum STEWART. representing there. I think disagreeing Court's opinion, me creates solves, join reversal. Act July 1953, P.L. 986, (27 Purdon's Statutes, 333). answer monies, abandoned ground. Section 1309, Abandoned Property Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws c. 1. N.Y.Laws 1960, 307. magnitude illustrated 1946, 20 enacted legislation enlarge coverage 1961; Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, 1960; Virginia, 1959; Mexico, Louisiana, 1958; Oregon, 1957; Utah, Arizona, 1956; Washington, 1955; 1953; Massachusetts, 1950; Arkansas, 1949; Connecticut, Michigan, 1947; North Carolina, 1946. Of these, 10—Arizona, Washington—have adopted Uniform Disposition Unclaimed promulgated Conference Commissioners Laws 1955. discussion general description growing see Ely, Escheats: Perils Precautions, Bus.Law. 791. shows laying precisely ground asserted bringing conflict too. 567, 817, 'whose proper

Category: 3