C. L. 146] must, as a necessary consequence, be conceded to every other individual owning a private telephone line. The result would be the improper invasion of the rights granted by law to the Buffum company or, in other words, the taking of its property without due process of law. A, therefore, is entitled to the same service as others but not more, and he will only be heard to complain when such service is denied. This subject was discussed incidentally with much clearness in Home Telephone Company of Joplin, Missouri v. Sarcoxie Light and Telephone Company, 236 Mo. 133, in which the conclusion we have indicated was reached." It is clear that the Knobnoster Mutual Telephone Company could not in its own right compel a physical connection with defendant for long distance or for local service. Section 10502, R. S. Mo. 1919, Section 93 of the Public Service Commission Law from which the Commission derives its authority, gives the Commission no power to require physical connection between telephone companies for local service even though both companies are subject to its general regulation and control as to service and rates. Nor can defendant be required to furnish a telephone to a rival telephone company for transferring messages orally to its patrons. "The general rule that one common carrier can not demand the use of a rival's property for carrying on its own business applies to telegraph and telephone companies; and neither at common law nor under the statutes requiring such a company to receive and transmit messages for other companies can a telephone company be required to install an instrument in the office of another telegraph or telephone company to be used by the patrons of or for delivering the telegraphic messages of the other company, and while a telephone company may be required to install an instrument in the office of a telegraph company for its ordinary private business, it is a proper regulation to require that it shall not be used for the delivery of messages in carrying on the public business of the latter company." Vol. 37, Cyc., paragraph 5, pages 1656, 1657, 1658. Home Telephone Company of Joplin, Missouri, v Sarcoxie Light and Telephone Company, 236 Mo. 133-135. Counsel for complainant contends that although the mutual company under the statutes and the ruling of the court, is not entitled to physical connection with defendant's lines for long distance or local service, that the purposes of having a physical connection by means of wires and other appliances may be lawfully met by requiring defendant to install a telephone for complainant's use in the office of the mutual company to be used in transferring the long distance and local messages from the lines of one company to the other. In seeking to procure additional facilities for telephone service by access to toll lines with which defendant connects, and local subscribers of the defendant through the agency of the complainant, the complainant is seeking to do for the mutual company indirectly what it can not accomplish in its own behalf. There is no showing that the defendant is furnishing service to others similar to that asked by complainant. The complainant proposes to pay the price charged by defendant to a single subscriber for exchange and toll service, and then use it to accommodate the 378 subscribers of the mutual company in the use of the defendant's exchange service and the toll service connected with its switchboard. The obligation of a telephone company for hire to a subscriber for its service is to furnish telephone service for the purposes of the subscriber, including service to his agents, employees, guests and the members of his family. To permit complainant to become a subscriber for defendant's service at the rates paid by other subscribers, and in addition to the uses named above to use defendant's service to accommodate a large section of the community, in the interchange of telephone service to and from the defendant's lines to the patrons of the mutual company, would constitute an undue preference, hence the refusal of defendant to furnish such service is not an unlawful discrimination against the complainant. In the case of Charles Jackson, Owner of Belle Telephone Company v. Farmers Telephone Company et al.,* 11 Mo. P. S. C. R. 406, the Commission permitted an individual operating a telephone exchange to adopt a rule against free service to subscribers by transferring messages to or from his lines. The defendant was within its rights in refusing to furnish complainant service for other than his own purposes. See Commission Leaflet No. 117, p. 442. LM C. L. 146] Defendant may submit for approval a reasonable rule authorizing it to refuse or discontinue service for transferring messages to or from its lines through the switchboard of the mutual company. The complaint herein should be dismissed. It is so ordered. ORDER. This case being at issue upon complaint and answer and having been duly heard and submitted, and the Commission having on the date hereof made a report in writing containing its conclusions and findings, which is hereby referred to and made a part hereof It is ordered, 1. That the complaint of A. H. House herein, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reasons set forth in the said report. Ordered, 2. That this order shall be in full force and effect on and after ten days from the date hereof. Ordered, 3. That the secretary forthwith serve a copy of the report and order herein upon the complainant and defendant. January 2, 1924. H. T. DANNATT v. MISSOURI UNION TELEPHONE COMPANY. to Another Decided January 4, 1924. Duty of Telephone Company to Furnish Service to All Residents of a REPORT. The complainant, who resides on a farm two miles distant from Calhoun, Missouri, charged the defendant, a cor poration engaged in operating a telephone exchange in that vicinity, with unlawful discrimination against him in its refusal to install a telephone as requested by complainant on the seventh day of July, 1923, at his office in the town of Calhoun, which is also the office of the Calhoun Mutual Telephone Company. The complainant avers that he is the manager of the Calhoun Mutual Telephone Company which is composed of 249 residents of Calhoun and the vicinity thereof, who have associated themselves together for affording communication by telephone with each other, and for that purpose maintain a switchboard and office in the town of Calhoun, and have physical connection with the switchboards of other mutual telephone companies in other communities which are nearby, thereby giving service through said switchboard to about 2,000 persons. Complainant is a shipper of livestock and is shipping agent for a farmers' club. He avers that to carry on said business it is necessary that he have telephone service to all the community; that complainant's office as shipper of livestock and manager of the mutual telephone company is in the same room used for the switchboard of the mutual company at Calhoun. That on the seventh day of July, 1923, complainant paid defendant $2.00, the monthly rate for its exchange business telephone service with a desk set, and requested that a telephone be installed at his office at the place aforesaid; that defendant returned said sum of money to complainant and refused to install a telephone, for the reason that complainant was manager of a competing company. Complainant prays for an order requiring defendant to install in his office at Calhoun a telephone properly connected with its switchboard to give him the same or similar service that defendant is giving other subscribers. The defendant is a telephone corporation engaged in furnishing telephone service for hire to the public at Calhoun and other towns in Henry County and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission as to rates and service. [Mc C. L. 146] Defendant by its answer, said that it had offered to install a telephone for complainant at his home or any other place upon the usual terms charged to other subscribers and to furnish him with the same service supplied to others; that defendant's reason for refusal to install a telephone at the office of the mutual telephone company, was because the purpose of such telephone service was to use it as a means of securing service to the mutual company through defendant's switchboard, and for extending the business of the mutual company in competition with and to the injury of the business of defendant. The case was heard and submitted at the office of the Commission on the nineteenth day of November, 1923. Mr. Ross Feaster appeared as attorney for complainant, and Mr. W. E. Owen as attorney for defendant. Complainant is manager of a mutual telephone company with 249 subscribers. The company was organized as a result of objections to an increase in exchange rates by defendant as authorized by this Commission about three years prior to the filing of this complaint. Before said increase in rates, defendant furnished telephone service to the community at Calhoun and had 450 subscribers. Defendant now has 200 subscribers at that exchange. Complainant is manager for a number of persons who associated themselves together for the purpose of establishing a mutual company at Calhoun, and in that vicinity. This association is not incorporated, but is designated as a mutual company because it serves only its members and does not serve the public for hire, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission as is the defendant and other companies which furnish telephone service to the public for hire. The members of the mutual company contributed funds to purchase the switchboard used by it. The members of the company construct and maintain their own lines and equipment. Rural members pay the mutual company See Commission Leaflet No. 87, p. 1011. |