The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sued D to recover damages caused by a fire originating in the bathroom of his home. D did not cause the fire, but its operator was negligent in not answering promptly a call to notify the Fire Department made first by his wife and then by P, which caused a delay of four or five minutes in reaching the Fire Department. P also alleged negligence of D in permitting its telephone system to become so obsolete, crowded and inadequate that it did not render prompt and efficient service. D demurred to the complaint which was overruled, and it answered with a general denial. P got the judgment for $1,500. D appealed. The proof at trial shows that P had a contract with D for telephone service in his residence at the rate of $1.75 per month. The telephone system in Benton is known as the magneto type, one where the subscriber has to crank his 'phone in order to contact central, and the hook that holds the receiver must be held down when ringing central.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.