McCardle v. Akron Tel. Co.

Decision Date11 May 1927
Docket NumberNo. 12957.,12957.
Citation87 Ind.App. 59,156 N.E. 469
PartiesMcCARDLE et al. v. AKRON TELEPHONE CO.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court; Frank O. Smitzer, Judge.

An order of the Public Service Commission, requiring the Akron Telephone Company to permit a drop to be connected with switchboard, after having been certified to the circuit court, was vacated and set aside, and John W. McCardle and others appeal. Reversed with directions.

U. S. Lesh, of Indianapolis, and Holman, Bernetha & Miller, of Rochester, for appellants.

Charles C. Campbell, of Rochester, and Albert B. Chipman, of Akron, for appellee.

McMAHAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment vacating and setting aside an order of the Public Service Commission, made March 23, 1923, requiring appellee to permit an additional drop to be connected with its switchboard for the purpose of providing additional facilities for telephone toll service between Rochester and Akron. Appellee's complaint to vacate this order was filed May 17, and summons made returnable June 4, 1923. The complaint alleges that the order of the commission should be vacated, because it is “insufficient,” in that it is unreasonable, for the reason that appellee has a line extending from Akron to a point three miles from Rochester over which a long-distance line could be extended; and that the order is unlawful, in that it is confiscatory and takes the property of appellee without just compensation.

It is not necessary that a long statement be made concerning the facts leading up to and connected with the making of the order by the Public Service Commission of which appellee complains. The Rochester Telephone Company owns a telephone plant at Rochester and has toll lines to a number of smaller towns near by. It has had a toll line from Rochester to Akron for many years, where it connected with the switchboard of appellee company. The latter company owns and operates a telephone system at Akron, and also has lines extending into the surrounding country, one of which lines extends to a point about three miles from Rochester.In order that the patrons of these companies might reach distant points, they were compelled to do so over what is generally known as the Bell System. Prior to May, 1921, the Akron company was connected with the Bell System through Wabash. For some reason the Bell people asked the Rochester company to take the Akron toll business, which the Rochester company agreed to do, after which the Bell people notified the Akron company that it was discontinuing the Wabash service, and that it should put its long-distance calls through the Rochester exchange. The business increased so that the one toll line between the two points was not sufficient to take care of the business. The public was demanding and insisting on better or quicker service. It is conceded that another toll line between Akron and Rochester is a public necessity.

On the hearing before the Public Service Commission, appellee contended that, instead of being required to permit the Rochester company to connect a second toll line with its switchboard, it should be permitted to extend its line from Athens to Rochester and there connect with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. Evansville City Coach Lines v. Rawlings
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 25 Junio 1951
    ...225 Ind. 30, 39, 72 N.E.2d 434; Schisler v. Merchants Trust Co., 1950, 228 Ind. 594, 600, 601, 94 N.E.2d 665; McCardle v. Akron Tel. Co., 1928, 87 Ind.App., 59, 64, 156 N.E. 469, 160 N.E. 48; Public Utilities, Pond, Vol. 3, § 946, p. The effect of the restraining order issued by the Superio......
  • State ex rel. Fletcher v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1932
    ...Tel. Co., 236 Ky. 747, 33 S.W.(2d) 676;Clinton-Dunn Tel. Co. v. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 159 N. C. 9, 74 S. E. 636;McCardle v. Akron Tel. Co., 87 Ind. App. 59, 156 N. E. 469, 160 N. E. 48;United States Tel. Co. v. Central Union Tel. Co. (C. C. A.) 202 F. 66;State ex rel., etc. v. Tel. Co.,......
  • State v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1932
    ... ... jurisdictions. Campbellsville Tel. Co. v. Lebanon L. & L ... Tel. Co., 118 Ky. 277, 80 S.W. 1114; R. R ... Commission v. Northern ... Co. v. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 159 N.C. 9, 74 S.E. 636; McCardle v. Akron ... Tel. Co., 87 Ind.App. 64, 160 N.E. 48; McCardle v ... Akron Tel. Co., 87 Ind.App ... ...
  • McCardle v. Akron Telephone Company
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 11 Mayo 1927

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT