Town of Pelham v. Pelham Telephone Co.

62 S.E. 186, 131 Ga. 325, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 77
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 17, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 62 S.E. 186 (Town of Pelham v. Pelham Telephone 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
Town of Pelham v. Pelham Telephone Co., 62 S.E. 186, 131 Ga. 325, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 77 (Ga. 1908).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. Express municipal assent to the occupation of a city’s streets by a telephone company can only be shown by formal municipal action, and not by mere general declarations of witnesses that such municipal assent was given. Parol statements of witnesses that certain improvements were made or work was done “with the full knowledge and consent of the municipal authorities of said town, including the mayor and council of said town;” and that a telephone company had established and maintained in the town a telephone system, with poles, wires, and other fixtures in, on, and over the streets, “all by the consent of the municipal authorities of said town;” and that a witness, who has been a member of the town council and of a committee thereof, has designated and pointed out in the streets of said town where to locate the poles and wires, “receiving his authority to do so from the town council of said town in regular meetings;” and other like statements, were not admissible in evidence.

2. Even if some of the testimony admitted over objection was competent as tending to raise an estoppel, it does not appear whether the court considered the testimony for that purpose, or to show an express municipal grant; and as the record does, not show it was so restricted, on another hearing its admissibility to establish an estoppel may be passed on by the court.

3. Material evidence having been erroneously admitted, which may have played an important part in affecting the decision of the presiding judge, the judgment is reversed and direction given that a new trial be had upon proper evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Injunction. Before Judge Spence. Mitchell superior court. December 7, 1907. Davis & Merry, for plaintiffs in error. J. T¡ Hill and Pope & Bennet, contra.

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

Related

Sims v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
141 S.E.2d 788 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Little v. Georgia Power Company
52 S.E.2d 322 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Pyrene Manufacturing Co. v. City of Atlanta
110 S.E. 408 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Hall v. City of Macon
95 S.E. 248 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)
Mayor of Sugar Valley v. Mills
91 S.E. 17 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Shinall v. City of Cartersville
87 S.E. 290 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Rome Railway & Light Co. v. Lansdell
79 S.E. 1131 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 S.E. 186, 131 Ga. 325, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-pelham-v-pelham-telephone-co-ga-1908.