Court Opinion

ID: 9832728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:08:35.117568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.972744
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists that the case as made on the facts was one in which the appellant merely undertook to deliver a call beyond its line to a connecting carrier line which it did not own, manage, or operate, and that therefore it was not responsible for any negligence not occurring on its own line. In this connection the evidence showed that the appellant’s line runs from Paris to Gaines-ville ; thence to a cedar post on Red river, where it stops. On the same cedar post on Red river, the line of the Chickasaw Telephone Company, a corporation, begins, and runs thence to Ardmore. The two lines are fixedly connected together with copper wires on the cedar post at Red river, and thus made a continuous line from Gainesville to Ardmore. There is no office or agent at this point of connection. The two companies entered into an agreement to each receive and deliver all calls originating in Paris for Ard-more, and in Ardmore for Paris, over the connected lines for one price, which they divide between themselves in proportion fixed by their agreement of about one-third and two-thirds.
According to the evidence, the operation of the two lines on a call between the points named is thus: The appellant’s operator at Gainesville, there in the office at Gaines-ville, adjusts the circuit connection, and when he adjusts the circuit connection then at once direct communication is had from Paris to Ardmore, or from Ardmore to Paris, as the call may be, over a continuous line. There is no other operator at Gainesville but appellant’s operator, and the inference is it is his duty to operate the circuit connection, and it is wholly operated by him. No other but a through circuit connection is made, it appears. According to the testimony of appellant’s manager, which is un-denied, “We transmit calls to Ardmore like we do to Paris, or any other place.” So the evidence conduces to prove the facts (1) that the two lines are separately owned by the two distinct companies; (2) that the two companies have associated themselves together by a special agreement to each receive and deliver all calls for points on the lines of each, and through the two lines united in one continuous line, for one price, which they divide between themselves in proportions fixed in their agreement; and (3) that the case in suit was a through call for appellee’s benefit from Paris to Ardmore, and that appellant accepted such through call and expressly agreed to deliver same at Ardmore to appellee, and to put Head and appellee in telephonic communication between the two points.
Having expressly undertaken to deliver the through call at Ardmore to appellee, then appellant, under the facts, would be liable' for any injury resulting to appellee from negligent failure to carry out the contract, whether caused by itself or its associated partner in the undertaking. And so under the evidence and on the point made we adhere to our original opinion that there was no error on the part of the trial court in refusing to give a peremptory instruction, or in the charge submitting the issue. ' The additional findings are made as being in compliance with the request so to do, as far as the evidence warrants.
The motion is overruled.