123 Ind. 113 | Ind. | 1890
This was a suit by the relators against appellant for the purpose of compelling the appellant to furnish relators the use of telephones.
The complaint alleges, substantially, that the appellant is a corporation, duly organized, and doing business under the laws of this State as a common carrier of telephonic messages in Michigan City, and has done business therein for the period of four years last past, during all of which time it has kept and now does keep, and maintain, in said city a telephone exchange for the use and benefit of the public, and individuals therein, leases telephonic machines or instruments, grants telephonic facilities, including needful and necessary connections that subscribers and others may reasonably require and demand ; that relators are residents of Michigan City, in said county, engaged in the wholesale and retail lumber business, and managing a planing mill in connection therewith, and that until about July 1, 1887, the ap
The court overruled a demurrer to the petition and alternative writ of mandate, and appellant, excepted.
To this answer the court sustained a demurrer, and the appellant failing to answer further, the relators had judgment.
The assignment of error calls in question the rulings of the circuit court, as above set out.
The case of Central Union Telephone Co. v. State, ex rel., 118 Ind. 194, and authorities there cited, is decisive of the case now before us. In that case it was held that under the laws of this State a person desiring the kind of telephonic service here required could compel, by mandate, the furnishing of such service; and that it was no defence to say that the person, or corporation, engaged in furnishing telephonic service did not rent telephones, but furnished such service by means of public stations only.
Judgment affirmed.