Walls v. Strickland
Decision Date | 17 October 1917 |
Docket Number | 123. |
Citation | 93 S.E. 857,174 N.C. 298 |
Parties | WALLS v. STRICKLAND. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Lee County; Allen, Judge.
Mandamus by G. W. Walls to compel W. J. Strickland to install a telephone. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action for a mandamus to compel the defendants, owners of a telephone line, to install a telephone. The facts are set out in the judgment rendered, which is as follows:
"This cause coming on to be heard before the undersigned judge of the superior court at chambers, and being heard, and it appearing that the plaintiff more than ten days before the return date of the summons caused summons to be served with a copy of his complaint, on the defendant, and that on the return date the parties appeared, and the defendant demurred to the plaintiff's complaint, which demurrer was overruled and defendant excepted, and the defendant filed answer, and that upon the pleadings the parties joined issue, which was heard upon the proofs of the parties, no jury trial being demanded, upon considering the proofs offered and the arguments of counsel, the court finds the facts to be:
(1) That the plaintiff is engaged in business in Lee county and is a resident thereof, and that the defendant is a resident of Chatham county.
(2) That the defendant at and before the commencement of this action was and now is engaged in furnishing telephone service to the public generally, with a central office located at Moncure, N. C., with lines extending from this point to Pittsboro, Merry Oaks, Osgood, and by the plaintiff's place of business at Lockville to Sanford and the defendant has established regular tariffs for residence and business service, and for toll messages over his and connecting lines.
(3) That prior to May 20, 1917, the defendant furnished such service to the plaintiff at regular rates.
(4) That on said date the defendant discontinued said service.
(5) That said service was not discontinued by reason of any improper use of said phone by the plaintiff, or by reason of any failure of plaintiff to observe any rule or regulation established by the defendant for the conduct of his telephone business.
(6) That prior to the institution of this action the plaintiff tendered to the defendant all rents due and the regular rental for one month in advance for a business phone and demanded that the defendant render him service without discrimination and under the same rules and regulations service is furnished to other patrons of the defendant.
(7) That the defendant refused and still refuses to furnish said service to the plaintiff.
Upon the foregoing facts the court doth adjudge: That the refusal of the defendant to furnish service to the plaintiff on the same terms and under the same conditions it is furnished to the general public is a discrimination against the plaintiff by the defendant; that said defendant is hereby directed and commanded on or before August 1, 1917, to install a telephone instrument in the plaintiff's premises, and to connect the same with the telephone system operated by the defendant and on and after date to furnish to the plaintiff service without discrimination upon the same terms and conditions that service is furnished to the public generally.
It is further ordered that the defendant pay the costs of this action, to be taxed by the clerk.
O. H. Allen, Judge Presiding."
The defendants excepted and appealed, upon the ground that telephone companies being subject to the control and regulation of the corporation commission, the courts have no jurisdiction of the action.
H. A. London & Son, of Pittsboro, for appellant.
Hoyle & Hoyle, of Sanford, for appellee.
The error in the position of the defendants is in failing to distinguish between the regulation and control of telephone companies, which, as to individuals and corporations, are committed by statute to the Corporation Commission (Revisal, § 1096; chapter 966, Laws 1907), whether exclusively so or not we need not say, and the refusal to perform a duty to the plaintiff, arising upon facts that are established. If the duty exists upon the facts found there is nothing for the Corporation Commission to hear and investigate, and it only remains for the courts to compel performance of the duty.
The question was considered in Godwin v. Telephone Co., 136 N.C. 259, 48 S.E. 636, 67 L. R. A. 251, 103 Am. St. Rep. 941, 1 Ann. Cas. 203, prior to the amendment of 1907 it is true, but when, as said in the opinion, telephone companies were placed by the Corporation Commission Act "on the same footing as to public uses as railroads," and it was then held that telephone companies, serving the public, must discharge their duties impartially and without discrimination, and that the writ of mandamus, issued by the courts, was the proper remedy to enforce the performance of the duty. The court declares the doctrine as follows:
This case was approved in Telephone Co. v. Telephone Co., 159 N.C. 14, 74 S.E. 638, decided after the amendments of 1907, and the jurisdiction to enforce performance of a duty by mandamus was recognized and exercised. The court says in the latter case of the duty and the remedy:
These authorities are decisive against the defendants.
Affirmed.
The Constitution (art. 1, § 19) provides that "the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable." In proceedings before the Corporation Commission there is no jury trial provided, and hence if no appeal lies therefrom by the plaintiff he is deprived of this sacred and inviolable right. It is solely upon the ground that an appeal gives the right of trial by jury that the acts creating recorders' courts have been held constitutional. State v. Lytle, 138 N.C. 738, 51 S.E. 66; State v. Shine, 149 N.C. 482, 62 S.E. 1080, and many other cases. We have held that an appeal lay from the county commissioners. Young v. Rollins, 90 N.C. 131; Lambe v. Love, 109 N.C. 305, 13 S.E. 773. And even that where an act gives no appeal, the court will grant a writ to bring up the case as on appeal. Hillsboro v Smith, 110 N.C. 418, 14 S.E. 972; Perry v. Commissioners, 130 N.C. 560, 41 S.E. 787. If no appeal lies from the Corporation Commission it is unconstitutional, as we held the recorders' courts would be if no appeal were allowed. In Corporation Commission v. Railroad, 170 N.C. 560, 87 S.E. 785, the court held that no appeal lay for the plaintiff or petitioner, though Revisal, § 1074, provides, "From all decisions or determinations made by the Corporation Commission any party affected thereby shall be entitled to appeal," and Laws 1907, c. 469, § 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Belk's Dept. Store v. Guilford County
...Arnold, 15 N.C. 99; Petty v. Jones, 23 N.C. 408; Lunceford v. McPherson, 48 N.C. 174; Hartsfield v. Jones, 49 N.C. 309; Walls v. Strickland, 174 N.C. 298, 93 S.E. 857. It readily be seen that where certiorari is used as a substitute for an appeal expressly provided in the law, which has bee......
-
State, ex rel. City of Chadron v. Intermountain Railway, Light & Power Company
... ... the court should compel the performance of the legal ... obligations and duties assumed and contained in such ... franchise. Walls v. Strickland, 174 N.C. 298, 93 ... S.E. 857; Mahan v. Michigan Telephone Co., 132 Mich ... 242, 93 N.W. 629; Yancey v. Batesville Telephone ... ...
-
Horton v. Interstate Tel. & Tel. Co.
... ... 636, 67 L. R. A. 251, 103 Am. St. Rep. 941, 1 Ann. Cas ... 203; Clinton-Dunn Telephone Co. v. Telephone Co., ... 159 N.C. 16, 74 S.E. 636; Walls v. Strickland, 174 ... N.C. 298, 93 S.E. 857; North Carolina Public Service Co ... v. Power Co., 179 N.C. 18, 101 S.E. 593, 12 A. L. R ... 304; ... ...
-
Grantham v. Nunn
... ... Person v. Doughton, 186 N.C ... at page 724, 120 S.E. 481; Service Co. v. Power Co., ... 179 N.C. 330, 102 S.E. 625, 12 A. L. R. 304; Walls v ... Strickland, 174 N.C. 298, 93 S.E. 857; Telephone Co ... v. Telephone Co., 159 N.C. 9, 74 S.E. 636; Edgerton ... v. Kirby, 156 N.C. 347, 72 ... ...