Vaught v. East Tennessee Telephone Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM HAMILTON. Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of Hamilton County. M. M. Allison Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Beard
This suit was brought by the plaintiff in error to recover from the defendant in error the statutory penalty of $100 per day provided in section 11, c. 66, of the Session Acts of the general assembly of this State of the year 1885, upon the alleged ground that, in violation of the terms of the statute, the defendant in error, having agreed to furnish him a telephone in his home, declined to install it until he paid three months’ rental in advance, and that this exaction was a “discrimina*321tion” against Rim, inasmuch as the general rule of the defendant in error, nnder which the exaction was…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Budd v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Central Union Telephone Co. v. FehringIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
- State ex rel. Webster v. Nebraska Telephone Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1885
- Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
- Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1898
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Home Telephone Co. v. People's Telephone & Telegraph Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1911
- Breeden v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1955
- Riegel v. Public Utilities CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1931
- Mooreland Rural Telephone Co. v. MouchIndiana Court of Appeals · 1911
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. ByrdTennessee Supreme Court · 1927