Case ID: ohio-st_114/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. The Mahoning Bus Co., v. Gessner, Judge.
    
      Public Utilities Commission—Motor transportation companies —Operation not certificated entirely within municipality ' or contiguous city—Order of commission not suspended by injunction proceeding—Writ of prohibition denied— Section 5k9, General Code.
    
    Carriers, 10 C. J. § 1069 (Anno.).
    (No. 19631
    Decided April 27, 1926.)
    In Prohibition.
    This cause was heard upon the demurrer of the defendant to the petition of the relator for a writ of prohibition, the action originating in this court. The allegations of the petition are brief. The Mahoning Bus Company, the relator, alleged that it obtained from the Public Utilities Commission a certificate of convenience and necessity, “authorizing it to operate a bus line within the jurisdiction of court of defendant”; that the Youngstown Municipal Railway Company had filed a petition in this court asking for a reversal of the order of the commission granting the certificate.
    The petition does not set forth the order in question or its character. The petition alleges that thereafter the railway company filed an action in the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, praying for an injunction prohibiting the relator from carrying passengers “whose complete ride is wholly within the territorial limits of the city of Youngstown,” and within the territorial limits of the cities of Youngstown, 'East Youngstown, and Struthers.. The petition further alleges that, disregarding the terms of said certificate of convenience and necessity, a temporary restraining order was issued by the defendant as prayed for in the Mahoning county court ease. It specifically alleges that the common pleas court of Mahoning county, Ohio, has no jurisdiction over the plaintiff, or of its operation of motor busses , under the certificate granted to it. Eelator ■ prays for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting Gessner, as judge of said Mahoning county court of common pleas, from proceeding with the hearing of the injunction suit, and from granting further orders or decrees therein.
    
      Mr. J. Eugene Roberts, for plaintiff.
    
      Messrs. Harrington, De Ford, Huxley & Smith, for defendant.
   By the Court.

Section 549, General Code, provides as follows: “No court other than the Supreme Court shall have power to review, suspend or delay any order made by the commission.”

Has the commission, under the facts alleged in the petition, made any order with which the Mahoning county common pleas court is attempting to interfere?

Section 614-86, General Code (111 O. L., 20, effective June, 1925), vests the Public Utilities Commission with power and authority to supervise and regulate motor transportation companies in this state. These powers have this qualification or proviso:

“Provided, further, that no motor transportation company operating under a certificate of convenience and necessity shall carry persons whose complete ride is wholly within the territorial limits of a municipal corporation, or within such limits and the territorial limits of municipal corporations immediately contiguous thereto, except with the consent of such municipal corporation or municipal corporations.”

It is not alleged in the petition that the relator obtained any certificate from the commission granting it the right to operate within territory whose complete ride is within the territorial limits of any city or contiguous cities. If the certificate does not include such urban limits, the injunctive order sought in the Mahoning county, court, restraining relator’s operation within those limits, will not impinge upon the order of the commission; nor, in such event, would the decree of the Mahoning county court have the effect of suspending or delaying the order made by the commission. The construction of Section 614-86, General Code, need not be determined here. It suffices to say that we are unable to see how, in the injunction proceeding, the order of the commission will be disturbed.

For the reasons stated the demurrer to the petition of the relator is sustained.

Demurrer sustained.

Jones, Matthias, Day, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Marshall, C. J., and Allen, J., concur in judgment.