C. & P. Telephone Co. v. Purnell

Norfolk Chancery Court, Virginia

C. & P. Telephone Co. v. Purnell

8 Va. Cir. 487, 1969 Va. Cir. LEXIS 10

CourtNorfolk Chancery Court, Virginia

DecidedOctober 29, 1969

DocketCase No. (Law) 5891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 Va. Cir. 487 (C. & P. Telephone Co. v. Purnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Norfolk Chancery Court, Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. & P. Telephone Co. v. Purnell, 8 Va. Cir. 487, 1969 Va. Cir. LEXIS 10 (Va. Super. Ct. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE EDWARD L. RYAN, JR.

'At defendant’s request, plaintiff installed a telephone in his residence. Plaintiff here sues defendant for general services, including long-distance calls, rendered between June 28, 1968, and August 28, 1968. Defendant refused to pay the charges and defends on the ground that he, personally, did not make the long-distance calls (save one to New Jersey, the charge therefor being $1.50). Defendant did not, or could not, advise the court as to who did make the telephone calls.

The Constitution of Virginia (i 156) empowers the State Corporation Commission to prescribe rules and regulations for the operation of public utilities, including the plaintiff. The evidence in this case shows that the General Regulations of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia provides the following:

3, Payment for Service

The customer is responsible for the payment of all charges. . .

If objection in writing is not received by the Telephone Company within thirty days after a statement of account is rendered, such statement shall be deemed to be correct and binding upon the customer.

[488]*488The General Assembly of Virginia has provided in Section 56-478 of the Code of Virginia that the State Corporation Commission shall establish such rates, charges, rules and regulations as may be reasonable and just.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia has ruled that the Commission has broad, general powers and that ”[i]n matters pertaining to the establishment of rates and charges of transmission and transportation companies, the Commission exercises a purely legislative function, and so far as such matters are concerned, it is the legislative branch of the government." This includes the power to provide for or change "any part of a filed schedule, rate, rule or regulation that in any manner affects the rates charged or to be charged." Newport News v. Telephone Company, 198 Va. 645 (1957).

In short, the clear law of Virginia is that "[t]he customer is responsible for the payment of all charges." The law makes no exception as to who makes the calls, and the customer is responsible whether he makes them or someone else does. Further, if the customer desires to make any objection to the charges, he must do so in writing and within thirty days after the account is rendered and the bill received. In this case the defendant, Mr. Purnell, made no such objection in writing, within thirty days.

The general law is that the rules and regulations are binding on the customer. It follows that judgment must be entered in favor of the plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE EDWARD L. RYAN, JR.

'At defendant’s request, plaintiff installed a telephone in his residence. Plaintiff here sues defendant for general services, including long-distance calls, rendered between June 28, 1968, and August 28, 1968. Defendant refused to pay the charges and defends on the ground that he, personally, did not make the long-distance calls (save one to New Jersey, the charge therefor being $1.50). Defendant did not, or could not, advise the court as to who did make the telephone calls.

The Constitution of Virginia (i 156) empowers the State Corporation Commission to prescribe rules and regulations for the operation of public utilities, including the plaintiff. The evidence in this case shows that the General Regulations of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia provides the following:

3, Payment for Service

The customer is responsible for the payment of all charges. . .

If objection in writing is not received by the Telephone Company within thirty days after a statement of account is rendered, such statement shall be deemed to be correct and binding upon the customer.

[488]*488The General Assembly of Virginia has provided in Section 56-478 of the Code of Virginia that the State Corporation Commission shall establish such rates, charges, rules and regulations as may be reasonable and just.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia has ruled that the Commission has broad, general powers and that ”[i]n matters pertaining to the establishment of rates and charges of transmission and transportation companies, the Commission exercises a purely legislative function, and so far as such matters are concerned, it is the legislative branch of the government." This includes the power to provide for or change "any part of a filed schedule, rate, rule or regulation that in any manner affects the rates charged or to be charged." Newport News v. Telephone Company, 198 Va. 645 (1957).

In short, the clear law of Virginia is that "[t]he customer is responsible for the payment of all charges." The law makes no exception as to who makes the calls, and the customer is responsible whether he makes them or someone else does. Further, if the customer desires to make any objection to the charges, he must do so in writing and within thirty days after the account is rendered and the bill received. In this case the defendant, Mr. Purnell, made no such objection in writing, within thirty days.

The general law is that the rules and regulations are binding on the customer. It follows that judgment must be entered in favor of the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Va. Cir. 487, 1969 Va. Cir. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-p-telephone-co-v-purnell-vachanctnorf-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack