Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Degge v. Hitchcock, Postmaster General

• 1912 • 229 U.S. 162 • White Court
In the 1912 case of Degge v. Hitchcock, Postmaster General, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mail delivery rights. The plaintiff, Degge, was an owner of a patent for a certain type of mailbox and had entered into contracts with rural homeowners to use his patented boxes for their mail deliveries. However, the Postmaster General issued an order that all rural carriers were to deliver only to government-approved standard rural mailboxes or else face dismissal from...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1912
Docket: 157
229 U.S. 162
33 S. Ct. 639
57 L. Ed. 1135
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2431
Argued: Jan 31, 1913

Degge v. Hitchcock, Postmaster General

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1912 case of Degge v. Hitchcock, Postmaster General, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mail delivery rights. The plaintiff, Degge, was an owner of a patent for a certain type of mailbox and had entered into contracts with rural homeowners to use his patented boxes for their mail deliveries. However, the Postmaster General issued an order that all rural carriers were to deliver only to government-approved standard rural mailboxes or else face dismissal from service. This effectively nullified Degge's contracts as his patented boxes did not meet these standards. Degge sued on grounds that this order violated his Fifth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process and taking private property for public use without just compensation. The court ruled against him stating that while he may have had exclusive right to manufacture and sell his invention under patent law; it did not guarantee any right in having postal officials compelled to utilize them in official duties nor protect him from changes in regulations affecting its utility.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Degge v. Hitchcock, it was argued that the Postmaster General did not have the authority to exclude mail from delivery based on its content without a court order. The dissenting justices believed that this power could potentially be abused and infringe upon freedom of speech rights protected by the First Amendment. They also expressed concern about potential violations of due process rights, as individuals or organizations whose mail was excluded would not have an opportunity to challenge this decision in court before their communications were disrupted. Furthermore, they pointed out that Congress had never explicitly granted such broad powers to the Postmaster General and questioned whether it even had constitutional authority to do so.

Opinion written by Justice JRLamar
Decided: May 26, 1913
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms