Surratt v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The single question in this case is whether the allegation in the bill of complaint that an account rendered by a telephone company “is inaccurate and grossly excessive,” together with an offer to pay the amount admitted to be due or to adjust the account “and tO' pay such sum of money as would reasonably and fairly represent the proper charges for the services rendered by the defendant,” is sufficient to support a bill for an injunction to restrain defendant from discontinuing telephone service for the refusal of plaintiff to ;pay the bill. ⁵¹² The plaintiff is a practicing attorney and the defendant is the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore City. The chancellor sustained the demurrer to the third amended bill of complaint and dismissed the bill, and this appeal is. from that decree. Demurrers to the original bill and the earlier amended bills had previously been sustained.

The bill now under consideration alleges that for many years plaintiff has been a subscriber to the service furnished by defendant; that, for a long time prior to< the filing of this-bill, there existed between plaintiff and defendant contention as to the accuracy of accounts rendered by defendant, and. that the present account is inaccurate and grossly excessive,, “the said account as rendered being in the sum of $77.89 (a copy of said account being attached hereto and made a part hereof), $7.45 of which account he admits, being and comprising the following four items: May, 1927, $2.10; June,, 1927, $2.50; July, 1927, $1.25; August, 1927, $1.60, and the balance of $70.44 he disputes; and which account your orator has refused to pay (though he hereby tenders himself as ready, willing and able to adjust said account with the-defendant and to pay such sum of money as would reasonably and fairly represent the proper charges for the services-rendered by the defendant)”; that defendant has notified plaintiff- that, unless the disputed account is paid without deduction, telephone service in plaintiff’s offices will be discontinued on a date named; that the discontinuance of such service would work an irreparable injury to plaintiff’s practice, and that he is without remedy save in a court of equity. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction and for further-relief. With the bill was filed an account rendered by defendant,, covering a period of eight months beginning January 1st,. 1927, a balance of $115.74 having been brought forward from the previous year. The account contains a statement for each month and the items for each month are: telephone-service for the month, additional local messages for the previous month, toll service for the previous month and balance- ⁵¹³ due on bill rendered.

In addition there are credits in four of the months of cash payments. Credits of May 5th, 192V, and June 29th, 192V, appear to settle the account up to May 1st, except for additional local messages and toll service for April, which are included in the May statement. It is not charged that plaintiff has not been given credit for all payments made by him. It, therefore, appears that included in the amount disputed by plaintiff are the regular monthly service charges for May, June, July and August, which are the same in each of those months as in the previous months for which settlement appears to have been made.

Certainly the court was entitled to be informed why such items as these at least were disputed. Apparently all the “additional local messages” are questioned. But it is not explained whether that is because there were no such messages, or not so many, or because defendant was not entitled to make an extra charge for them or charged too much. And in this connection, there is not a word in the bill as to what was the contract between plaintiff and defendant.

If the tender in the bill of willingness “to adjust said account with the defendant and to pay such sums of money as would reasonably and fairly represent the proper charges for the service rendered by the defendant” is. to be taken as an admission that part of the disputed balance is due, there is a failure to state what part is due, and why the remaining part is not due; or in what respect the account “is inaccurate and grossly excessive” as to the disputed balance. Again, it is not alleged that any effort was ever made by plaintiff to explain to defendant his reasons for disputing the accuracy of the account, or that