Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Hendon

• Decision Date: 07 January 1903
• Citation: 114 Ky. 50,71 S.W. 435
• Parties: CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. HENDON.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

71 S.W. 435

114 Ky. 50

CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. HENDON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 7, 1903

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county, common pleas division.

"To be officially reported."

Action by G. A. Hendon against the Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Fairleigh Straus & Eagles, for appellant.

Pryor &amp Sapinsky and O'Neal & O'Neal, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

Appellee Hendon, is a physician, living in Louisville. He was a patron of the appellant, the Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company, and had one of its instruments in his office. Appellant discontinued the telephone from 3 o'clock p. m of October 23, 1900, to 8:45 a. m. the next morning, or something less than 18 hours, and this action was brought to recover damages therefor. The reason the telephone was disconnected was that the bookkeeper made a mistake in posting the amount paid. His book did not show that Hendon had paid for the month of September, although he had in fact paid. On October 22d a notice was sent to him that his 'phone was discontinued for this reason, and, he having paid no attention to the notice, 24 hours afterwards the connection at the office was severed, although the instrument was not removed. When he got home at 6 o'clock that evening and found that he had been cut off, he tried to 'phone to the office, but failed to get them. The next morning he went down, the mistake was at once corrected, and the instrument was no longer discontinued. The proof showed that he had not only paid for September, but had also paid in advance for October, November, and December. It also showed that one person who needed the doctor for his wife that night, being unable to reach him by 'phone, walked to his office and waked him up. It also showed that three other persons who wished to talk with him were unable to reach him on the 'phone, and that, when one of them asked at the office what was the matter, the assistant manager answered that his 'phone had been discontinued for nonpayment of rent. It is not shown that he suffered any pecuniary loss by the suspension of the service, although it would seem that he was considerably annoyed about it. On these facts the jury found for him a verdict for $200, on which the court entered judgment. The court instructed the jury that they should find for the plaintiff at least nominal damages, and, if they believed from the evidence he suffered inconvenience by reason of...