Guam Telephone Authority v. Great Pacific Realty

Superior Court of Guam

Guam Telephone Authority v. Great Pacific Realty

2 Guam 29

CourtSuperior Court of Guam

DecidedFebruary 29, 1980

DocketCivil No. 835-78

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Guam 29 (Guam Telephone Authority v. Great Pacific Realty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guam Telephone Authority v. Great Pacific Realty, 2 Guam 29 (superctguam 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

WEEKS, Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

Judgment was entered against Pacific Realty on April 9, 1979.

Roy Cate was brought to Court to be examined as to his assets for payment of the judgment. The Court finds his liability extended only to the period of time he was employed as a broker for Pacific Realty Company. He admits that he personally applied for the telephone on the company's behalf and he asserts that he cancelled the phone when leaving two months later. Although plaintiff has no record of the cancellation the testimony received indicates that a record of the cancellation might not have been made or if made, might have been destroyed.

The Court finds Mr. Cate could be held liable only for the April and May billings and the installation charge. These billings as shown are $25.18 and the installation charge is $35.00.

[30]*30However, testimony of the Telephone Company representative was that the bill payments from April to September were current.

It therefore appears that Mr. Cate would not be liable for any of the present judgment.

SO ORDERED.

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

WEEKS, Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

Judgment was entered against Pacific Realty on April 9, 1979.

Roy Cate was brought to Court to be examined as to his assets for payment of the judgment. The Court finds his liability extended only to the period of time he was employed as a broker for Pacific Realty Company. He admits that he personally applied for the telephone on the company's behalf and he asserts that he cancelled the phone when leaving two months later. Although plaintiff has no record of the cancellation the testimony received indicates that a record of the cancellation might not have been made or if made, might have been destroyed.

The Court finds Mr. Cate could be held liable only for the April and May billings and the installation charge. These billings as shown are $25.18 and the installation charge is $35.00.

[30]*30However, testimony of the Telephone Company representative was that the bill payments from April to September were current.

It therefore appears that Mr. Cate would not be liable for any of the present judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Guam 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guam-telephone-authority-v-great-pacific-realty-superctguam-1980.