Manning v. Interstate Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Manning v. Interstate Telephone & Telegraph Co.

60 S.E. 1134, 147 N.C. 298, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 56

DecidedApril 8, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 60 S.E. 1134 (Manning v. Interstate Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manning v. Interstate Telephone & Telegraph Co., 60 S.E. 1134, 147 N.C. 298, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 56 (N.C. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee. OusiaM :

The Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the subject of what constitutes an unlawful discrimination upon the part of a telephone company. It appears in the record that the fee which defendant is authorized to charge *299 to copartnerships for the use of one ’phone is $3.50 per month. It appears that plaintiffs are copartners in “minor surgery” (whatever that may be) and occupy connecting offices used in the business, and as such use one ’phone in common. The fact that they have private practice not embraced by their copartnership does not make them any the less copartners, and we think as such they come within the schedule of defendant’s rates and must be charged as copartners.

Affirmed.

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

Pee. OusiaM :

The Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the subject of what constitutes an unlawful discrimination upon the part of a telephone company. It appears in the record that the fee which defendant is authorized to charge *299 to copartnerships for the use of one ’phone is $3.50 per month. It appears that plaintiffs are copartners in “minor surgery” (whatever that may be) and occupy connecting offices used in the business, and as such use one ’phone in common. The fact that they have private practice not embraced by their copartnership does not make them any the less copartners, and we think as such they come within the schedule of defendant’s rates and must be charged as copartners.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 1134, 147 N.C. 298, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-interstate-telephone-telegraph-co-nc-1908.