Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Citation169 F. Supp. 133
Decision Date25 July 1958
Docket NumberCiv. No. 3962-J.
PartiesRoy J. NEERING, d/b/a Vogue Stylists, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Carl G. Swanson, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff.

Harold B. Wahl, Loftin & Wahl, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant.

SIMPSON, District Judge.

This cause coming on to be heard, after due notice, on defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the Court having considered the entire record and file herein, the Court finds from the pleadings, affidavits and plaintiff's deposition (taken July 3, 1958) the following to be the undisputed facts:

1. In the 1954 issue of the defendant's telephone directory plaintiff had an advertisement in which there was an error as to telephone number. (Page 5 of Deposition).
2. Plaintiff had seven other listings in the same telephone directory which were correct. (Page 6 of Deposition).
3. Plaintiff signed an application for the directory advertising in which the error appeared, which application provided:
"The Telephone Company's liability on account of errors in or omissions of such advertising shall in no event exceed the amount of charges for the advertising which was omitted or in which the error occurred in the then current directory issue." (Page 7 of Deposition).
4. Plaintiff signed application forms for similar advertising, with the same above quoted provision, and has retained carbon copy of most of such forms, for 13 years. (Pages 10 and 21 of Deposition).
5. Plaintiff has been given credit on his account for the amount of charges for the advertising in which the error occurred. (Page 11 of Deposition).

This Court in the case of Silverman v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Case No. 1413-J Civil, speaking through the late Judge Strum, on May 26, 1948 considered this same provision of the defendant's application form and held that it was valid. See also Hamilton Employment Service v. New York Telephone Company, 1930, 253 N.Y. 468, 171 N.E. 710, 711; Riaboff v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 1940, 39 Cal.App.2d Supp. 775, 102 P.2d 465; 52 Am.Jur. Sec. 95, page 125; Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 1955, 208 Md. 245, 117 A.2d 873; Shealy's, Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., D.C., 126 F.Supp. 382; Superior Appliances, Inc. v. Southern Bell, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, at Miami, No. 4266-M Civil, order dated September 11, 1952.

Although plaintiff admits that he signed this same contract form for thirteen years he claims he did not have an opportunity to read it. However, as stated by the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Sutton v. Crane, 1958, 101 So.2d 823, at page 825, 12 Am.Jur. Contracts, Sec. 137, gives the correct rule as follows:

"* * * The rule that one who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents has been applied even to contracts of illiterate
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • MOBILE ELECTRONIC SERV. v. FIRSTEL, INC
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 24 Julio 2002
    ...App. 194, 554 P.2d 723 (1976); Ed Fine Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Diamond State Tel. Co., 494 A.2d 636 (Del.1985); Neering v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., 169 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Fla.1958); Advance Service, Inc. v. General Tel. Co. of Fla., 187 So.2d 660 (Fla.App.1966); Southworth & McGill, P.A., v. South......
  • Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Coastal Transmission Service, Inc., 65684
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 Julio 1983
    ...See Seaboard C.L.R. Co. v. Freight Delivery Service, 133 Ga.App. 92, 93(1), 210 S.E.2d 42 (1974) and cits.; Neering v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 169 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Fla.1958), where summary judgment was granted to Southern Bell on the basis of the same contract clause involved here ........
  • McClure Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1983
    ...352 S.W.2d 460; Georges v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. (D.Or.1960), 184 F.Supp. 571; Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. (S.D.Fla.1958), 169 F.Supp. 133. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Isla......
  • Pigman v. Ameritech Pub., Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 24 Octubre 1994
    ...38 Colo.App. 194, 554 P.2d 723; Ed Fine Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Diamond State Tel. Co. (1985), Del., 494 A.2d 636; Neering v. Southern Bell Tel. Co. (S.D.Fla.1958), 169 F.Supp. 133; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. C & S Realty Company, (1977), 141 Ga.App. 216, 233 S.E.2d 9 (overruled in part o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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