Case: EASTERN EXTENSION, AUSTRALASIA & CHINA TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LTD., v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Eastern Extension, Australasia & China Telegraph Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1920-01-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 55 Ct. Cl. 510
Volume: 55
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: EASTERN EXTENSION, AUSTRALASIA & CHINA TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LTD., v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
EASTERN EXTENSION, AUSTRALASIA & CHINA TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LTD., v. THE UNITED STATES.
[54 C. Cls., 108; 251 U. S., 355.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
The Court of Claims is without jurisdiction of a claim based on an obligation of the United States growing directly out of the treaty with Spain ceding the Philippine Islands or on one imposed by principles of international law as a consequence of the cession. Eastern Extensión Tel. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S., 326; Jud. Code, see. 153.
To create an express or (in a strict sense) an implied contract binding the United States, some officer with express or implied power to commit the Government must have intended that result.
A cable company holding Spanish concessions in the Philippines obliging it to transmit Government messages, in part free and in part at reduced rates, and to pay certain taxes, and entitling it to a subsidy, claimed the subsidy from the United States, upon the ground that the Government, by accepting the benefits, had assumed the burdens of the concessions. Held, That no such contract could be derived from the facts as found.
Such a contract could not be implied from the use of the cable service in transmitting Government messages, when the Government paid the rates, in part reduced but all as fixed and charged by the company, and, through the Secretary of War, expressly declined free service.
Nor did any liability of the United States arise from expenditures made by the company in voluntarily extending its lines with approval of the Government given without prejudice to the Government’s rights.
The acceptance by subordinate executive officials of the insular government of payments tendered by the cable company in connection with statements of account assuming a recognition of its concessions and right to subsidy, 1held no basis for implying an obligation of the United States to pay the subsidy.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Claeke
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 12, 1920.