Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. Spink County Power Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, Spink County. Hon. Alva E. Taylor, Judge. Action by Dakota Central Telephone Company, a corporation, against the Spink 'County Power Company, a corporation, to enjoin defend&nt from interfering through electro-magnetic induction from its power plant with plaintiffs telephone lines, and for other relief. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. (io) To point ten, Appellant cited: Tri-County Mutual Tel.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Spink County. Hon. Alva E. Taylor, Judge. Action by Dakota Central Telephone Company, a corporation, against the Spink 'County Power Company, a corporation, to enjoin defend&nt from interfering through electro-magnetic induction from its power plant with plaintiffs telephone lines, and for other relief. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. (io) To point ten, Appellant cited: Tri-County Mutual Tel. Co. v. Bridgewater Power Co. (6. D.), 167 N. W. 501; 90 Ohio St. 144-100 N. E. 970; Cumberland Telegraph Co. v. United Electric Co. (Penn.), 27 E. R. A. 236.…
1Opinion of the CourtGate'S, J.
The ultimate concrete question now in this case is whether a telephone company using a low tension current of electricity and using the earth as a return circuit, the earlier occupant of a highway, or an electric power and light company, the 'later occupant, using a high tension current, shall bear the expense of installing a metallic return circuit in the telephone lines in order to eliminate the electromagnetic induction of the telephone lines by the power lines.
[1-3] Without going extensively into the scientific aspects of the case, it may be stated that the evidence shows that electric…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Bearce v. BassSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1896
- Commonwealth v. MorrisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. United Electric Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1894
- Mordhurst v. Ft. Wayne & Southwestern Traction Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1904
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Southwestern Public Service Co. v. MooreTexas Supreme Court · 1930
- Phillippay v. Pacific Power & Light Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1922
- Yamhill County Mutual Telephone Co. v. Yamhill Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Oregon Short Line Railroad Company v. Murray CityUtah Supreme Court · 1954
- City of Plankinton v. KiefferSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1945
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.