Cambridge Home Telephone Co. v. Harrington

Plaintiff in error contends that Emma Burlingame and Elizabeth Harrington at the time of the accident were engaged in a joint enterprise;that the act of Emma Burlingame was the act of Elizabeth Harrington, hence she cannot recover. Plaintiff in error further claims that it had a right, under Sec tion 9170 of the General Code of Ohio, to plant its pole at the point in question, and that by so doing it did not incommode the public in the use of the road.

The telephone company interposed two defenses, the first amounting to a substantial denial; the second was to the effect that if plaintiff…