Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Haber, Blum, Bloch Hat Co. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Haber, Blum, Bloch Hat Co. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

45 S.E. 696, 118 Ga. 874, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 748
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 3, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 45 S.E. 696 (Haber, Blum, Bloch Hat Co. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haber, Blum, Bloch Hat Co. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 45 S.E. 696, 118 Ga. 874, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 748 (Ga. 1903).

Opinion

Tuknek, J.

1. A special demurrer which is founded on the terms of a contract neither set out in the petition nor made in any way a part thereof will not be .considered.

2. Where a subscriber to a telephone exchange at one place desired to communicate with his regular counsel in another place, was refused the long-distance connection, contrary to an alleged contract, and avers that in consequence of such refusal he (the said subscriber) paid unnecessarily and unjusily a delinquent employee one hundred and seventy-five dollars to get rid of him and to recover from him certain property entrusted to him, and to avoid a threatened lawsuit, it not appearing that such absent counsel could have controlled such delinquent employee, such payment can not be recovered as actual or special damages. This view is reinforced, if it needs reinforcement, by the averment that this sum was unnecessarily paid.

3. Nor do we think that the refusal by a telephone company to a subscriber of a long-distance connection, without aggravating circumstances, would entitle a party to exemplary or punitive' damages.

4. While the breach of contract would entitle the party injured to nominal damages, at least (Civil Code, §3801), this principle of law does not apply in a case in which only actual and punitive damages are sued for, construing the pleadings most strongly against the pleader.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Fei Zhong v. Pnc Bank, N.A.
812 S.E.2d 514 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2018)
Solon Automated Services, Inc. v. Pines Associates, Inc.
274 S.E.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Bendle v. Ortho Mattress, Inc.
211 S.E.2d 618 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
King v. Cox
202 S.E.2d 216 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Bennett v. Associated Food Stores, Inc.
165 S.E.2d 581 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
East Side Lumber & Coal Co. v. Barfield
24 S.E.2d 681 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Wade v. Georgia Motor Sales Inc.
145 S.E. 111 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Copeland v. Dunehoo
138 S.E. 267 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Phinizy v. Phinizy
111 S.E. 433 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Twin City Lumber Co. v. Daniels
96 S.E. 437 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Stephens
80 S.E. 516 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Sparks Milling Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
72 S.E. 179 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Hadden v. Southern Messenger Service
69 S.E. 480 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 S.E. 696, 118 Ga. 874, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haber-blum-bloch-hat-co-v-southern-bell-telephone-telegraph-co-ga-1903.