Pioneer Tel. Tel. Co. v. State, Moore

1920 OK 32, 188 P. 107, 78 Okla. 38, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 289
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 20, 1920
Docket8467
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1920 OK 32 (Pioneer Tel. Tel. Co. v. State, Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pioneer Tel. Tel. Co. v. State, Moore, 1920 OK 32, 188 P. 107, 78 Okla. 38, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 289 (Okla. 1920).

Opinion

OWEN, C. J.

This action was begun by John A. Simpson and others, of Weatherford, Oklahoma, who allege, in substance, that citizens of Weatherford -are compelled to keep two telephones in • their residences and places of business, and those citizens residing in the country cannot talk over the long-distance lines, because there is no physical connection between the lines and exchanges of the Pioneer Telephone Company and the Farmers’ Mutual Telephone Company in the town of Weatherford.

It appears from the findings of the commission that the Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Company and the Farmers’ Mutual Telephone Company each maintain a telephone exchange in the town of Weatherford; that both companies are operated for hire, and that the subscribers to the Farmers’ Mutual Company cannot use the long-distance facilities of the Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Company for the reason there is no physical connection between the two lines; that the public convenience and necessities would be benefited by such physical connection. Under section 5, art. 9,' of the Constitution, a physical connection is mandatory, the only limitation being that the rules and regulations prescribed by the commission as to such operation shall be reasonable and just. Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Company v. State and Darnell, 71 Oklahoma, 177 Pac. 580; Pioneer Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. State, 38 Okla. 554, 134 Pac. 398.

This order provides, among other things, that the Mutual Telephone Company shall pay the cost of making the physical connection and shall guarantee to collect and pay to the Pioneer Company the toll charges originated on its lines; shall give prompt service to its patrons desiring long-distance connection with the Pioneer Company. This, in view of all the circumstances as disclosed by the evidence, seems a reasonable and just provision, the only addition necessary being a provision for service to the subscribers of the Pioneer Company, and to cover which the order should be so modified as to provide that the Farmers’ Mutual Telephone Company shall give prompt service and connection to the patrons and subscribers of the Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Company, and those having connection with these lines who desire long-distance connection with the patrons and subscribers of said Farmers’ Mutual Telephone Company.

The order as thus modified will be reasonable and just, and is, therefore, affirmed.

KANE, RAINEY, JOHNSON, and Mc-NEILL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gibson v. Elmore City Telephone Company
1966 OK 30 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1966)
Oklahoma-Arkansas Telephone Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
1930 OK 203 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Blackledge v. Farmers Independent Telephone Co.
181 N.W. 709 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1920 OK 32, 188 P. 107, 78 Okla. 38, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioneer-tel-tel-co-v-state-moore-okla-1920.