Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

224 N.E.2d 528, 9 Ohio St. 2d 153, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 374, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 435

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1967

DocketNo. 40225

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 N.E.2d 528 (Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 224 N.E.2d 528, 9 Ohio St. 2d 153, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 374, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 435 (Ohio 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Whether the appellant had authority to discontinue telephone service at complainant’s residence and at his restaurant depends upon what appellant’s tariff provisions provide. The tariff provision relied upon by appellant provides that:

“Where amounts due for exchange service are unpaid within twenty (20) days after the date of the monthly statement for exchange service, the telephone company may discontinue the service and remove its equipment from the subscriber’s premises.”

Nothing in the above-quoted tariff expressly gives the appellant authority to discontinue service at one location of a subscriber when the subscriber has failed to pay a balance due for service at another location. The appellant could have written its tariff clearly to provide for such termination, but did not. See, for example, Morse v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (1957), 152 Cal. App. 2d 854, 314 P. 2d 192, where the tariff provisions specifically provide for discontinuance of service at all locations if bills for service at any one or more locations are not paid before becoming past due.

The order of the commission, not being unreasonable or unlawful, is therefore affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and SCHNEIDER, JJ., concur. Brown, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

Whether the appellant had authority to discontinue telephone service at complainant’s residence and at his restaurant depends upon what appellant’s tariff provisions provide. The tariff provision relied upon by appellant provides that:

“Where amounts due for exchange service are unpaid within twenty (20) days after the date of the monthly statement for exchange service, the telephone company may discontinue the service and remove its equipment from the subscriber’s premises.”

Nothing in the above-quoted tariff expressly gives the appellant authority to discontinue service at one location of a subscriber when the subscriber has failed to pay a balance due for service at another location. The appellant could have written its tariff clearly to provide for such termination, but did not. See, for example, Morse v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (1957), 152 Cal. App. 2d 854, 314 P. 2d 192, where the tariff provisions specifically provide for discontinuance of service at all locations if bills for service at any one or more locations are not paid before becoming past due.

The order of the commission, not being unreasonable or unlawful, is therefore affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and SCHNEIDER, JJ., concur. Brown, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 N.E.2d 528, 9 Ohio St. 2d 153, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 374, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-ohio-telephone-co-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack