State ex rel. Payne v. Kinloch Telephone Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from. St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachritz, Judge. (1) Tbe defendant is a common carrier as to its private ’phones as well as to its public ’phones and is governed by the law applicable to common carriers and is bound to serve all alike without discrimination. State ex rel. Tel. Co. v. Tel. Co., 23 Eed. Rep. 539: State ex rel. Cable Co. v. Telegraph & Telephone Co., 47 Eed. Rep. 633; State ex rel.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachritz, Judge. (1) Tbe defendant is a common carrier as to its private ’phones as well as to its public ’phones and is governed by the law applicable to common carriers and is bound to serve all alike without discrimination. State ex rel. Tel. Co. v. Tel. Co., 23 Eed. Rep. 539: State ex rel. Cable Co. v. Telegraph & Telephone Co., 47 Eed. Rep. 633; State ex rel. Ealley, 118 Ind. 194; “Webster Telephone Case,” State ex rel. v. Tel. Co., 17 Neb. 126; Sec. 1255, R. S. 1899; State v. Tel. Co., 36 Ohio St. 296; Tel. Co. v. Tel. Co., 66…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
— An alternative writ of mandamus was issued at the instance of appellants, commanding the respondent to rent to the appellants a telephone instrument and place the same, together with the usual appurtenances in their building, connect it with the wires of the respondent’s telephone system, and so maintain it as to afford the plaintiffs the customary facilities for receiving and transmitting messages over the wires *354of the respondent throughout the city of St. Louis, or show' cause to the contrary.
Appellants constitute a co-partnership doing business under the style, f the Keystone View…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Budd v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Spring Valley Water Works v. SchottlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- People v. . BuddNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Brass v. North Dakota Ex Rel. StoeserSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Postal Cable Telegraph Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1910
- Danaher v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Coosa Valley Telephone Company v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
- Home Telephone Co. v. Granby & Neosho Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Nacogdoches Light & Power Co. v. Thomas & RichardsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.