636
The Green Bag,
tions; that they were false and that the party making them knew they were false when he made them. As the insurance com pany in this case refused to believe that the assured was dead and as the beneficiary had to resort to the courts to compel a payment of the policy the court says that there could be no connection between the false represen tations and the obtaining of the property unless the court in which the judgment against the insurance company was obtained could be deemed the agent of the company.. But in regard to this the court says: "If the principle of agency here contended for shall come to be the law, it may, as a result, deter much litigation, as an honest man with a good cause might heskate to invoke the ac tion of a court, for, although successful, he might find himself imperiled in the toils of a criminal prosecution. The doctrine con tended for would in a measure destroy the integrity of judgments in civil cases when they could thus be attacked by a criminal prosecution. We do not believe the doc trine of agency here contended for accords with sound legal principle. The courts of the country are not to be thus involved in private prosecutions, nor can the integrity of their judgments be jeopardized by char acterizing them as a part of the machinery in the consummation of a fraud. The courts of the country are independent agencies of the government, and their judgments are presumed to speak the truth. Nor will it be permitted that their judgments be as sailed as the instruments of fraud, or as an agency in the perpetration of a swindle. In the very nature of things, they must stand aloof from any connection with the parties as their agent, save as a function of govern ment—as the final arbiter between all parties, for the determination of the right and the truth as between them. We hold that, whenever their power is invoked be tween the attempt and execution of the pur pose to swindle, it is the intervention of an independent moral agent, which cuts off any criminal prosecution assumed to be consum mated in the judgment.
TELEPHONES. (DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TOLL — SET-OFF.)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. In Irvin v. Rushville Co-operative Tele phone Co., 69 Northeastern Reporter 258, it was contended that a telephone company could not discontinue its service to a patron for the non-payment of tolls if the patron had a claim against the telephone company. This contention the court regards as untena ble and quotes the opinion of the appellate court on a former appeal of the case : "It can not be denied that a rule of the company re quiring these monthly payments to be made in advance would hafve been a reasonable rule, and that upon refusal so to pay service could be denied. The company must protect its plant, and keep up its efficiency, and may enfore a rule that insures a reasonable revenue and its prompt receipt. It can maintain an efficient service only through prompt pay ments of its dues and tolls,, and because of that fact it may use the summary remedy of denying service for non-payment. It cannot be said it may be denied the benefit of this rule because a patron claims the company is indebted to him. It cannot be required to stop and adjudicate claims held against it. The law compels it to furnish service. A patron may take service or not, as he chooses. It must furnish efficient service to all alike, who are alike situated, and must not discriminate in favor of or against any one. For failure the extraordinary rem edies of mandamus and injunction may be •successfully invoked. It may be said that the courts are open to the company to col lect its claim, but as to this the company and the patrons are on an equal footing. The fact that the patron is solvent aids nothing in determining a rule which must apply to sol vent patrons alike. Keeping in view the nature of the company's duties, and me services it may be compelled to render, it must be held that the company may en force the payment of its current dues ancl tolls by the summary remedy of denying service regardless of the fact that the sub scriber claims the company is indebted to him."
