Commonwealth v. Central District Telephone Co.

Citations

• 243 Pa. 586
• 90 A. 338
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 670

Syllabus

<p>Telegraph and telephone companies — Corporations—Contracts— Bight of telephone company to terminate — Mandamus—Answer—; Demurrer.</p> <p>1. In a proceeding against a telephone company for a mandamus to compel the defendant company to furnish its service to the relator under the terms of a contract, the petition averred and pet out a written contract, under which defendant rendered service for nine years when it terminated the contract and disconnected the line, in alleged violation of the contract and in unreasonable discrimination against relator. The answer filed admitted the contract, denied any discrimination, and averred that respondent had not for six years furnished service to any other customer under the particular form of contract or at the rate therein provided, and that “after due notice” respondent had terminated relator’s contract, and also that the contract “was never intended by the parties to be perpetual in its operation at the option of the relator.” The relator demurred to the answer. The contract itself provided for certain contingencies upon which it could be terminated at the option of the respondent, none of which were averred in the answer as the reason for discontinuing the service; provided for a certain rate to be paid during the term of one year, making no provision for an extension beyond that period, but showing an intention that should the line remain connected after the year, the service would continue until another contract was substituted. It provided also that “the subscriber may terminate the contract at any time after the first year by giving thirty days’ notice,” but contained no provision as to how the company might terminate the contract after the first year. The court below overruled the demurrer and entered judgment against relator. Held, no error.</p> <p>2. Such a contract will be construed to mean that after the first year the contract became one without time limit, which either party could terminate, the subscriber by