Wood v. Kansas City Home Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — No». John G. Park, Judge. (1) Plaintiff and his associates had a perfect right to buy the franchise from Enoch, regardless of whether they had notice of the contract that Enoch had made with the Central Construction Company. Land & Gravel Co. v. Com. Co., 138 Mo. 439; Chambers v. Baldwin, 91 Ky. 121; Bourlier v. Maeauley, 91 Ky. 135; Boison v. Thorn, 98 Cal. 578; McCann v. Wolff, 28 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — No». John G. Park, Judge. (1) Plaintiff and his associates had a perfect right to buy the franchise from Enoch, regardless of whether they had notice of the contract that Enoch had made with the Central Construction Company. Land & Gravel Co. v. Com. Co., 138 Mo. 439; Chambers v. Baldwin, 91 Ky. 121; Bourlier v. Maeauley, 91 Ky. 135; Boison v. Thorn, 98 Cal. 578; McCann v. Wolff, 28 Mo. App. 447; Cooley on Torts, 497. (2) The compromise of the controversy between the People’s Telephone Company and the Home Telephone Company constituted a sufficient…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
For some months prior to November 9, 1901, one John Enoch had been diligently engaged in trying to procure a franchise from Kansas City to construct and maintain a telephone system in said city. From the evidence it appears that the city had previously granted a franchise to what it thought was an independent concern, but nothing came from it, and the old telephone company continued to hold the field undisputed as to competition. It would appear that the purpose of the then Mayor was to secure competition in the telephone business in the city, and if possible to obviate what had been…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hackley v. HeadleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Goebel v. LinnMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Taylor v. ShortSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Frue v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1882
- Helm v. HelmSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Hartsville Oil Mill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Duke v. ForceWashington Supreme Court · 1922
- Weisert v. BrammanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Hall v. Meriden Trust & Safe Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Foster v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1943
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.