The Central Union Telephone Co. v. Bradbury
Decision Date | 23 March 1886 |
Docket Number | 12,701 |
Citation | 5 N.E. 721,106 Ind. 1 |
Parties | The Central Union Telephone Company v. Bradbury |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Superior Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
J. E McDonald, J. M. Butler, A. L. Mason, T. A. Hendricks, C Baker, O. B. Hord, A. W. Hendricks, A. Baker, E. Daniels, N Williams, J. L. Thompson and C. S. Holt, for appellant.
A. C Harris, W. H. Calkins, C. Byfield, L. Howland and D. M. Bradbury, for appellee.
An act, imposing certain duties upon telegraph and telephone companies, was passed by the General Assembly of this State, which was approved and went into effect on the 8th day of April, 1885. The second section of that act is as follows:
"Every telephone company with wires wholly or partly within this State, and engaged in a general telephone business, shall within the local limits of such telephone company's business supply all applicants for telephone connections and facilities with such connections and facilities without discrimination or partiality, provided such applicants comply or offer to comply with the reasonable regulations of the company; and no such company shall impose any conditions or restrictions upon any such applicant that are not imposed impartially upon all persons or companies in like situation, nor shall such company discriminate against any individual or company engaged in any lawful business, or between individuals or companies engaged in the same business, by requiring as a condition for furnishing such facilities that they shall not be used in the business of the applicant, or otherwise for any lawful purpose." Acts 1885, 151.
On the 13th day of April, 1885, the General Assembly passed another act, entitled "An act to regulate the rental allowed for the use of telephones, and fixing a penalty for its violation," the first section of which is in the following words: Acts 1885, 227.
At the time of the enactment of these statutes, the Central Union Telephone Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, was, as it still is, the owner and operator of a telephonic exchange and a system of telephone lines within and in the immediate vicinity of the city of Indianapolis, in this State, being then and still the only company engaged in the telephone business within that city.
On the 31st day of August, 1885, Daniel M. Bradbury, a resident citizen of Indianapolis, addressed to this telephone company the following letter:
To this, John E. Hockett, the district superintendent in charge of the company's business at Indianapolis, responded as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richmond Natural Gas Co. v. Clawson
...N. E. 17, 36 L. R. A. 535;City of Rushville v. Rushville Natural Gas Co., 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853, 15 L. R. A. 321;Telephone Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N. E. 721;Telephone Co. v. Falley, 118 Ind. 194, 19 N. E. 604;State v. Portland Natural Gas Co., 153 Ind. 483, 53 N. E. 1089. In the......
-
The Richmond Natural Gas Company v. Clawson
... ... Ind. 575, 15 L. R. A. 321, 28 N.E. 853; Central Union ... Tel. Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N.E. 721; ... Central ... ...
- Cent. Union Tel. Co. v. State ex rel. Bradbury