Pacific Telephone Co. v. Salem
Oregon Supreme Court
From Marion: William Galloway, Judge. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Bean. This is a suit for an injunction by the Pacific States Telephone &■ Telegraph Co. against the City of Salem and Chas. E. Sumner.
Read the full summary
From Marion: William Galloway, Judge. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Bean. This is a suit for an injunction by the Pacific States Telephone &■ Telegraph Co. against the City of Salem and Chas. E. Sumner. In 1884, the City of Salem granted to George S. Ladd, his associates and assigns, a 50-year franchise to erect, maintain and operate in the city a telephone system, and to use the streets, alleys and thoroughfares therefor, the wires to be strung on poles or other fixtures above ground or laid under ground in pipes, as the grantee might elect]" in consideration of which the city was to use…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Bean
1. An injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and will not be granted when'-the evidence is so conflicting as to make the right to it doubtful: Taylor v. Welch, 6 Or. 198; Tongue v. Gaston, 10 Or. 328. “The burden of proof,” says Lord, J., in Tongue v. Gaston, “in such case being on the plaintiff, he must clearly establish the essential allegations of his complaint.”
2. The plaintiff grounds its right to the relief on the contention that the franchise to Sumner is more favorable in its terms than the one under which it operates. The burden of proof is *113upon it to establish this fact by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Taylor v. WelchOregon Supreme Court · 1876
- Tongue v. GastonOregon Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Millsap v. Eugene Care Center, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1984