Legal Opinion

Horton v. Interstate Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 20, 1932PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaeKSON, J.

Tbe defendant is a public service corporation. The present action is in its nature a mandamus to compel defendant to perform a duty which plaintiff alleges it owed him as a public service corporation and install a telephone in plaintiff’s place of business and place the name T. J. Horton Company in defendant’s telephone directory. A mandamus is a proper remedy in such cases when the facts warrant. Godwin v. Telephone Co., 136 N. C., 259; Telephone Co. v. Telephone Co., 159 N. C., 16; Walls v. Strickland, 174 N. C., 298; Public Service Co. v. Power Co., 179 N. C., 18; Public Service Co. v.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. DanaherSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. North Carolina Public Service Co. v. Southern Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  3. Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. HobartMississippi Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Godwin v. Telephone Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  5. Commercial Union Telegraph Co. v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1888

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Logan CityUtah Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Webb v. Diamond State Telephone CompanyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1967
  3. Jordan v. Clarke-Washington Electric Membership Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  4. Bennett v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. Bennett v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

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

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

Powered by the Exa API