Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Wythe Mutual Telephone Co.

129 S.E. 389, 142 Va. 529, 1925 Va. LEXIS 356
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedSeptember 17, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 129 S.E. 389 (Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Wythe Mutual Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Wythe Mutual Telephone Co., 129 S.E. 389, 142 Va. 529, 1925 Va. LEXIS 356 (Va. 1925).

Opinion

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill in this cause was filed by the appellee asking for a discovery and accounting by reason of the pro[531]*531"visions of a contract entered into between appellant .and appellee.

The Virginia and Tennessee Telephone Company, the predecessor in title of the appellant, was engaged in the local and long distance telephone business in the town of Wytheville and in the county of Wythe.

It was also engaged in transmitting long distance messages in other parts of the State, both upon its •own system, and as a part of what is known as the Bell system.

The appellee was likewise engaged in the local telephone business in the town of Wytheville and the •county of Wythe.

As a result of this conflicting situation, the two companies began negotiations which culminated in the sale •of its central plants and local facilities by the Virginia .and Tennessee Company to the appellee.

The agreement entered into was evidenced by three ■writings executed July 1, 1915: (1) A deed from the Virginia and Tennessee Company, conveying its local •exchange, franchise wires and equipment within the -corporate limits of the town of Wytheville, Virginia, together with certain lines, easements, etc., outside of ■the town, to the appellee; (2) a traffic agreement which provided for an interchange of traffic and the handling of long distance communications through the switch boards of the appellee, and for compensation for such .services, measured by or based upon a percentage of •tolls collected from month to month, this percentage to be fixed by periodical toll studies; under this agreement, the appellee was given, as its full compensation for long distance messages, an originating commission upon messages sent from Wytheville or from territory -embraced within its own lines; no prorate was provided for in this agreement; (3) a plant agreement, [532]*532which, after reciting the foregoing agreements provides, for various connections and interchange of telephonic-communications over the lines and through the exchanges of the respective parties; it also provides that the Virginia and Tennessee Company will, at its own expense, maintain the two copper wire circuits running-through the corporate limits of the town, and that it will likewise maintain any additional circuits which may be thereafter erected.

In this agreement the appellee covenants that it will,, upon the termination thereof, convey such long distance copper wire circuits as may then be installed to the Virginia and Tennessee Company together with such rights as the appellee may have the power to. convey.

Subsequent to the foregoing negotiations all the properties, franchises and business of the Virginia and Tennessee Telephone Company were acquired by purchase by the appellant and by an order of the State-Corporation Commission, entered February 29, 1916,. the Virginia and Tennessee Company was duly merged with and into the appellant and ceased to exist as a separate corporation.

After the acquirement of the properties of the Virginia and Tennessee Company, the appellant offered to add to the traffic agreement a provision for a prorate of the tolls for long distance messages originating- or terminating at any point on the lines of appellant,, instead of merely compensation to appellee in the way of commissions upon messages sent from Wytheville- or originating in the territory embraced within its own lines.

Pursuant to this offer an agreement was entered into,, effective June 2, 1917, called the exchange and toll line agreement. Under and by virtue of subsection 7 of [533]*533this agreement it was and is provided as follows: “For all communications passing over the toll lines of both parties hereto and originating or terminating on the lines of either party, each party hereto shall be entitled to receive, in addition to, and after first deducting, the originating commissions, hereinbefore specified, a share of the amount of the through toll remaining for each such communication, in the proportion, in each ease, which the length of its toll line bears to the whole-length of the toll lines of both parties hereto, measured by airline distance between the point at which the toll lines of both parties hereto connect and the respective points of origin and termination.

“For all communications passing over the toll lines of both parties hereto and originating or terminating on the lines of the Bell Company’s connecting companies, other than the connecting company party hereto, the parties hereto shall share in the amount of the through toll remaining after deducting the originating commissions hereinbefore specified and the allowance for the use of the lines of such connecting companies, and the lines of any other such connecting companies involved, in the proportion, in each case, which the length of the toll line of each party hereto bears to the whole length of the toll lines of both parties hereto, measured by air-line distance between the point at which their toll lines connect and the terminals of their respective toll lines involved.

“In determining the pro rata on tolls, for all communications passing over the toll lines of both parties hereto, that route shall govern which will provide the shortest sum of air-line distance between the points of origin and termination, determined as hereinbefore provided.”

It is over this provision of the contract that this liti[534]*534gation has arisen. Concretely stated, the contention ■of the appellee is that it is entitled to pro rate with the appellant on all. messages passing over the through wires located in the town of Wytheville regardless of the origin or termination of the messages.

The contention of the appellant is that (a) the agreement does not include a pro rate on through messages; (b) that the provision (if any) for a pro rate on through messages was inserted through mutual mistake; (c) that a specific enforcement of the contract would be inequitable.

The cause was submitted to the circuit court upon the original bill and exhibits, the answer'and cross-bill of appellant, the demurrer of appellee and the depositions of witnesses. The conclusion reached by the chancellor was that the appellee was entitled to the relief sought in its bill of complaint and a decree was entered which sets forth, amongst other things, the following:

(1) That the defendant is not entitled to the relief prayed for in its answer asked to be treated as a cross-bill, and the said answer treated as a cross-bill is accordingly dismissed.

(2) That the complainant is entitled to the relief ■prayed for in its bill, and the demurrer of the defendant to said bill is accordingly overruled, and it is adjudged, ordered and decreed that the defendant do account to and pay over to the complainant the pro rate on . tolls provided for in subsection 7 of division third of the contract filed as an exhibit with eomplain-.ant’s bill and set out in the complainant’s bill, on all messages hereafter passing over the long distance circuits through the town of Wytheville and not originating or terminating at or through the local exchange of the complainant in the town of Wytheville; and in [535]

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

Related

Parrish v. Robertson
80 S.E.2d 407 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1954)
Conley v. Easley
68 S.E.2d 23 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1951)
Southwest Virginia Hospitals, Inc. v. Lipps
68 S.E.2d 82 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1951)
Swalley v. Addressograph Multigraph Corp.
158 F.2d 51 (Seventh Circuit, 1946)
Town of Ashland v. Newman
175 S.E. 724 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1934)
Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
167 S.E. 351 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933)
White v. Commonwealth
164 S.E. 375 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1932)
Chick v. MacBain
160 S.E. 214 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1931)
Adams, Payne & Gleaves, Inc. v. Indiana Wood Preserving Co.
154 S.E. 558 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1930)
People's Bank v. People's National Bank
139 S.E. 325 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1927)
Berg v. Scully
245 P. 119 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 S.E. 389, 142 Va. 529, 1925 Va. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesapeake-potomac-telephone-co-v-wythe-mutual-telephone-co-va-1925.