Rice Belt Telephone Co. v. Malcomb
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, Thomas G. Trimble, Judge; 1. The suit should have been dismissed or transferred. Acts 1913, 192; Acts 1909, 293. Both parties resided in the Northern District and courts of the Southern District had no jurisdiction. 2. Instruction No. 1 was error. The penalty is not for negligence or delay, but only for wilful refusal or discrimination.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, Thomas G. Trimble, Judge; 1. The suit should have been dismissed or transferred. Acts 1913, 192; Acts 1909, 293. Both parties resided in the Northern District and courts of the Southern District had no jurisdiction. 2. Instruction No. 1 was error. The penalty is not for negligence or delay, but only for wilful refusal or discrimination. Kirby’s & Castle’s Dige'st, § 9903; 123 Ark. 197. There is no testimony of wilful refusal nor discrimination. 1. The verdict is supported by the testimony. 125 Ark; 225, 464. 2. Instruction No. 1 is correct. 102 Ark. 547.…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). The plaintiff resided in the town of Stuttgart in the Northern District of Arkansas County, and the telephone company had its principal office there. Its lines extended into the Southern District of Arkansas County and it had-a branch office there. The plaintiff brought this suit in the Southern District and the telephone company moved to transfer it to the Northern District. The court refused to make the transfer and its ruling is now assigned as error calling for a reversal of the judgment.
The Legislature of 1909 passed an act regulating the service of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chamberlain v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Hill v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. GarriganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913