Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

companies shall be listed and assessed in the county, town, district, village or city where the same is used or kept.

56. False schedule, etc.) § 56. If any person or corporation shall give a false or fraudulent list, schedule or statement, required by this act, or shall fail or refuse to deliver to the assessor, when called on for that purpose, a list of the taxable personal property which he is required to list under this act, he or it shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $10 nor more than $2,000, to be recovered in any proper form of action, in the name o fthe People o fthe State of Illinois, on the complaint of any person. Such fine, when collected, to be paid into the county treasury.

57. Perjury.) § 57. Whoever shall wilfully make a false list, schedule or statement, under oath, shall, in addition to the penalty provided in the preceding section, be liable as in case of perjury.

In general—Telephone companies.

Foreign telegraph companies are not required to appoint a representative in Illinois upon whom service may be had.

Midland Tel. Co. v. Nat'l Tel. Co., 236 III. 476 (482). Telephone companies must furnish customers every improved service without extra charge, where the rate is fixed by the ordinance granting the company license to do business. A customer who voluntarily pays an excess rate cannot, however, recover the over-payment.

Illinois Glass Co. v. Chicago Tel. Co., 234 Ill. 540. The act, "Telegraph Companies," of July, 1874, and the act of 1903 as to telephone companies, give such companies no authority except after securing the consent of the city concerned, and in compliance with the terms imposed by the municipality.

People v. Cent. - Union Tel. Co., 232 Ill. 260 (p. 275). An irrevocable grant of special franchise privileges for no definite term except the life of the company, but reserving the right to grant like privileges to others, is not unconstitutional under Section 14, Article 2 of the constitution.

People v. Cent. Union Tel. Co., 232 111. 260 (p. 279).

A franchise or license granted to a telephone company, without reserving the right to terminate same on breach of the conditions named in the ordinances, may be terminated by the city anyway if in its judgment the company fails to fulfill the terms of the grant.

People v. Cent. Union Tel. Co., 232 Ill. 260 (p. 279). A telephone company cannot be compelled by mandamus to make its semi-annual report of gross receipts to the municipality even though the city has a 3 per cent interest therein and such report is required by the franchise granted.

City of Chicago v. Chicago Tel. Co., 230 III. 157. A license to erect telephone poles and wires in a city street, originally issued to individuals but assigned to a corporation, is good where the city has full knowledge of the facts, and uses the poles for fire alarm purposes, but cannot be employed without compensation to abutting owners, if they object.

De Kalb Co. Tel. Co. v. Dutton, 228 Ill. 178. The erection and use of telephone poles and wires in a city street without the consent of abutting owners, or condemnation, but on a license granted to individuals, but afterward assigned to the telephone company, is unlawful, being an additional servitude upon the fee possessed by abutting owners, and may be enjoined.

De Kalb Co. Tel. Co. v. Dutton, 228 Ill. 178. That a telephone system is useful to the public does not prevent its removal by suit to enjoin its operation, etc., where it was unlawfully constructed.

Burrall v. Amer. Tel. Co., 224 Ill. 266. Whether telephone poles are constructed so as to obstruct the highway is a question of fact. But the fact that highway commissioners do not designate places for such poles does not bar proceedings against the company for violating the statute. (Section 71, Road and Bridge Act.)

Inter-State Tel. Co. v. Towanda, 221 Ill. 299.

The fact that a telephone company charged higher rates in territory annexed to a city before such annexation, does not justify a continuation of such high rates after annexation, where the ordinance of such city fixes a lower rate.

People v. Chicago Tel. Co., 220 III. 238. A telephone company that has accepted an ordinance granting it a franchise but naming the rates to be charged for telephone service, is not authorized to make “special contracts” at rates higher than those named in the ordinance, for improved service made possible by the advance in service and invention, although the company continues to offer the old service at ordinance rates. Improved service does not justify increased charges under special contracts, although agreed to by subscribers.

People v. Chicago Tel. Co., 220 III. 238. A resolution of a village board granting rights to a telephone company becomes a contract when accepted and acted upon by the company with knowledge by the village authorities.

Village of London Mills v. White, 208 Ill. 289. The Telegraph and Telephone Act applies to individuals only so far as it requires written consent to erect poles and wires. Individuals may operate telephone lines, but have no power to eminent domain.

Village of London Mills v. White, 208 Ill. 289. Granting a second telephone company the privilege of placing poles and wires on the same side of a street already occupied by poles of another telephone company is proper; and it may overbuild or underbuild.

Chicago Tel. Co. v. N. W. Tel. Co., 199 III. 324 (353). Subsequent approval by a city cures any failure of a telephone company to place its apparatus as required by its permit.

Chicago Tel. Co. v. N. W. Tel. Co., 199 Ill. 324 (353).

Telegraph companies.

May conduct a "ticker” business.

Midland Tel. Co. v. Nat. Tel. Co., 236 Ill. 476. Rule as to damage in condemnation by.

Ill. Tel. News Co. v. Meine, 242 Ill. 568. Are empowered to condemn right of way.

People v. Cent. Union Tel. Co., 232 Ill. 260. Telegraph line along public highway may damage adjacent farm-when.

Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Darst, 192 III. 47.

Petition of telegraph company to condemn right of way for poles and wires along railroad right of way, held sufficientprocedure—incident controversies.

St. L. & C. R. R. Co. v. Postal Tel. Co., 173 Ill. 508. Telegraph lines and wires are an additional servitude and cannot be put in without the consent of abutting owners, except by condemnation.

Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 Ill. 513. County boards must consent to the use of highways by telegraph company-but such consent gives no rights until abutting owners consent or condemnation is had.

Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 Ill. 513. One receiving a telegram is not bound by printed rules and conditions on back thereof, unless he has consented theretoagainst public policy.

Webbe v. W. U. T. Co., 169 I11. 610. Action for alteration of a telegraph message while in transit is tort, as no contract exists between the company and the receiver of the telegram.

Webbe v. W. U. T. Co., 169 III. 610. Section 6 of Telegraph Act is not violated by refusal of a telegraph company to place a telephone in its office.

People v. W. U. T. Co., 166 III. 15.

Mandamus does not lie to compel a telegraph company to place a telephone in its office, although it has allowed another telephone company that privilege.

People v. W. U. T. Co., 166 III. 15. Telegraph company leased building on condition lessor would not lease any part of same to another telegraph company. The other company bought the fee and used part of the building for its offices. Held proper—injunction denied.

Postal Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 155 Ill. 335.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »