Williams v. Maysville Telephone Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1904
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. MAYSVILLE TELEPHONE CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

82 S.W. 995

119 Ky. 33

WILLIAMS v. MAYSVILLE TELEPHONE CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 15, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mason County.

"To be officially reported." Action by G. M. Williams against the Maysville Telephone Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. D Cole, for appellant.

Thos R. Phister, for appellee.

NUNN J.

Appellant instituted this action against appellee, and alleged, in substance, that it was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Kentucky for the purpose of owning, constructing, using, and maintaining electric telephone wires and exchange within the city of Maysville that it was authorized to transact and perform this work and service by an ordinance passed by the city council, and that prior to the institution of this action, and at that time appellee was engaged in the business, having established an exchange from which connections were made to telephone instruments in offices, places of business, and residences of its subscribers; and then continued as follows: "That whenever a person desires a telephone it is placed in the office, residence, or place of business of the applicant, at the expense of defendant, with authority to the subscriber to use the same, upon certain rates and terms, for the purpose of telephonic communication with others. That on or about the -- day of March, 1904, he sent to defendant a demand in writing for a telephone to be placed in his residence on Forrest avenue, in said city of Maysville, together with telephonic communications with defendant's exchange and other subscribers, and accompanied said demand with the payment of good and lawful money of the sum to wit, $3, required by the defendant for the use of said telephone and telephonic connections during the period of time which he desired its use, to wit, three (3) months, which sum defendant accepted; but refused to comply with plaintiff's said demand unless he would agree to sign a contract to keep said telephone and pay for the use thereof for a period of twelve (12) months. That other of defendant's subscribers whose residences were then and are now on the same and other streets of said city--indeed, were on the same square as the residence of the plaintiff--were and are supplied with telephones by defendant under agreements which contain no such stipulation. That said telephone and telephonic communication is necessary to the use and convenience of his said residence, as well as to answer emergency calls in his profession. That he is now living in rented property, and does not know how long he will remain there, for which reason he avers and charges that defendant's said stipulation, which is made a condition precedent to compliance with his said demand for said telephone and telephonic communications, is an unreasonable, unjust, and oppressive discrimination, and also a violation of the duties owing by it to the public as a common carrier. Wherefore plaintiff prays for a writ of mandamus requiring defendant to place a telephone in his residence in the city of Maysville, and to connect it properly with defendant's exchange and its subscribers, and to do all the acts necessary to afford the plaintiff the like service and telephonic communication afforded to its other subscribers." A demurrer was sustained to this petition, and appellant amended as follows: "The plaintiff, G. M. Williams,...