Bell Tel. Co. of Pa. v. Cruice

• Decision Date: 21 July 1955
• Parties: The BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. Robert CRUICE, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 355

116 A.2d 355

178 Pa.Super. 308

The BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. Robert CRUICE, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

July 21, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 1955.

Application for Allocatur Denied Oct. 3, 1955.

Robert Cruice, in pro. per.

Joseph A. Keough, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and ROSS, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE and ERVIN, JJ.

GUNTHER, Judge.

Plaintiff Bell Telephone Company sued defendant before a magistrate to recover $24.07 for telephone service and judgment was entered for plaintiff. Defendant appealed, and, after a trial before a judge without a jury, a verdict was again rendered for plaintiff. Upon defendant's failure to prosecute his motions for new trial and judgment n. o. v., judgment was entered on the verdict and defendant has appealed to this court.

The testimony disclosed that plaintiff installed a telephone in an apartment at 2125 Pine Street, Philadelphia, which was given the number Locust 7-5561, and was charged to defendant. A written application, signed by defendant, was made not to list the telephone number. Defendant stated that this application was blank when he signed it and now contends that it was intended for another phone number. A check signed by defendant, but dishonored, was produced showing the exact amount then due for the telephone in question. The check had originally been marked for defendant's business phone, but was changed to this number. The phone was admittedly not in defendant's property, but in the apartment of a Mrs. Rowan. This woman could not obtain a telephone because of a delinquent bill. Defendant admitted telling plaintiff's attorney that he knew Mrs. Rowan and authorized her to use his name to obtain a telephone with the understanding that she would pay the bill.

This evidence is sufficient to show that defendant authorized a telephone be ordered in his name and that he ratified this action by signing a non-list application and a check for a monthly bill. From these facts the deduction of his primary liability is clear. A finding for a party by a trial judge sitting without a jury has the force and effect of a jury's verdict. Beato v. DiPilato, 175 Pa.Super. 602, 106 A.2d 641. The granting of a new trial on the ground that the finding of a trial judge, sitting without a jury, was against the weight of the evidence is peculiarly for the court below, and the appellate court will not reverse unless there has been an abuse of discretion....