Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Citation | 169 F. Supp. 133 |
Decision Date | 25 July 1958 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 3962-J. |
Parties | Roy J. NEERING, d/b/a Vogue Stylists, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Carl G. Swanson, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff.
Harold B. Wahl, Loftin & Wahl, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant.
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:
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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
MOBILE ELECTRONIC SERV. v. FIRSTEL, INC
...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
...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.
...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.
...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......