Magruder v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.Magruder v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is аn action for damages by appellant against appellee because he was cut off from telephone connectiоn in the month of May, and again in the month of August. The averment is that appellant had paid-every bill рresented to him punctually and promptly for some years. He had paid, though, on presentment to him at his office. It appears, howevеr, that in the
We think it thoroughly well settled for centuries that he who owes must find the creditor and pay him. Certainly this is true, if the creditor is in the same state. He must dо this in person, or by agent, or by check at the risk of the debtor. 22 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.), 533, and authorities citеd to note 5 from England and America, covering еleven states of the American Union. This rule is without dissеnt anywhere, ■and includes merchants, lawyers, doctors, landlords, express companies, railroad companies, telephone and tеlegraph companies, and all the trades. It applies to all commercial paper not payable on demand or for protest to bind parties secondarily liable. Thе reverse would cripple commercе. If there had been a habit of presenting bills through a collector, such a habit is ex gratiaand may be abandoned at will on proper notice. . In the case before us notice was given, thе custom of presentation by collectors was abandoned, and the company had the right, subsequently, to payment at its own office. This being оur view of the law, it is wholly unnecessary to go into the question of the rulings on admissibility of testimony, becausе, if this view be right, it is immaterial as to what was the damage suffered, being not recoverable, and in the matter of discrimination it is sufficient to say that that is not within the scope of this particular proceeding,.and, besides, there is no sufficient evidence of discrimination to be found in this record.
Affirmed.