Skip to content

Louisville Vs. Cumberland Tel. and Tel. Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number231 U.S. 652
RespondentCumberland Tel. and Tel. Co.
louisville v. cumberland tel. & tel. co. - 231 u.s. 652 (1914) u.s. supreme court louisville v. cumberland tel. & tel. co., 231 u.s. 652 (1914) louisville v. cumberland telephone and telegraph company no. 538 argued november 10, 1913 decided january 5, 1914 231 u.s. 652 appeal from the district court of the united states for the western district of kentucky syllabus decided on authority of in re louisville, ante, p. 231 u. s. 639 . the facts are stated in the opinion. page 231 u. s. 653 mr. justice mckenna delivered the opinion of the court. appeal from the order of march 10, 1913, referred to in nos. 11 and 12, original, and which order it was the object of the petition for.....
Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. - 231 U.S. 652 (1914)
U.S. Supreme Court Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 231 U.S. 652 (1914)

Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company

No. 538

Argued November 10, 1913

Decided January 5, 1914

231 U.S. 652




Decided on authority of In re Louisville, ante, p. 231 U. S. 639 .

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 231 U. S. 653

MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appeal from the order of March 10, 1913, referred to in Nos. 11 and 12, Original, and which order it was the object of the petition for mandamus, passed on in No. 11, to command the judge of the district court to vacate. The appeal also includes certain other orders which preceded the making of that order. The question, which is fundamental of all, is whether the decision and decree of this Court set out in No. 11, Original, and the mandate issued thereon, permitted further proceedings in the suit, or necessarily required its dismissal. This is the general basis of the assignments of error, and, as included in it, special objection is made to the instructions given the master in the orders appealed from, to the refusal of the court to order the Telephone Company to pay into court, for immediate distribution among those entitled thereto, whatever sums the company collected in excess of the ordinance rates, and deciding instead that a bond should be required of the company for the restitution of the amounts if the ordinance rates should ultimately be held not to be confiscatory. These objections are repeated in the usual way of assignments of error.

The discretion vested in the court, we considered in No 11, Original, and repetition would serve no purpose . For the reasons there given the order of the district court is


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //