Legal Opinion

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Drainage District No. 8

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 1923PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFarrington, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court in the sum of $58.29 for damages sustained by it by reason of defendants cutting its telephone wires. These wires were strung at proper height on poles along a public road which intersected the defendants’ drainage ditch.

Defendants assumed to act under Road and Bridge Act, passed by the Legislature in 1917. [See Session Acts 1917, pages 480, 481, and section 3326, R. S. 1909, now sections 10737 to 10741, inclusive, R. S. 1919.] Defendants gave required notice under such law to plaintiff to remove its wires and poles, which plaintiff refused to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Deiner v. SutermeisterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
  2. Lyons v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1913
  3. Bruntmeyer v. Squaw Creek Drainage District No. 1Missouri Court of Appeals · 1917
  4. State v. MaurerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
  5. Heman Construction Co. v. LyonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
  2. Millhouse v. Drainage District No. 48 of Dunklin CountyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
  3. Phillips Pipe Line Co. v. BrandstetterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
  4. City of Salinas v. Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. State ex rel. Rybolt v. EasleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API