Williams v. Maysville Telephone Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 6 — Action by G. M. Williams Against the Maysville Telephone Co. foe a Mandamus to Compel said Company to Put a Telephone in Plaintiff’s House. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT-JAS. P. HARBESON, CIRCUIT •TUDGE.
Read the full summary
Case 6 — Action by G. M. Williams Against the Maysville Telephone Co. foe a Mandamus to Compel said Company to Put a Telephone in Plaintiff’s House. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT-JAS. P. HARBESON, CIRCUIT •TUDGE. Judgment for Defendant and Plaintiff Appeals. 1. We -submit that under sec. 199, of the Constitution, telephone companies are recognized as common carriers, and in dependent of the Constitution, they owe to the public the duties of a common carrier according to the principles of the common law. 2. Telephone companies are affected witli the public interest and are; bound to serve…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the cottrt by
JUDGE NUNN
Affirming.
Appellant instituted this action against appellee, and alleged, in substance, that it was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky for the purpose of owning, constructing, using, and maintaining electric telephone wires and exchange within the city of Mays-ville; that it was authorized to transact and perforin this work and service by an ordinance passed by the city council, and that prior to the institution of this action, and'at that time, appellee was engaged in the business, having established an exchange from…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State ex rel. Goodwine v. CadwalladerIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. MulliganCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Kiefer v. City of Idaho FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
- City of Campbellsville v. Taylor County Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- Marion Electric Light & Ice Co. v. RochesterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.