Case Name: Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1918-06-21
Citations: 98 Ohio St. 303
Docket Number: No. 15849
Parties: Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission.
Judges: Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Matthias and Donahue, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 98
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission.
Public utilities commission — Jurisdiction — Interurban railways — Application for increased passenger fares — Before existing franchise-contract expires.
(No. 15849
Decided June 21, 1918.)
Error to the Public Utilities Commission.
Facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. William M. Coleman; Messrs. Harrington, DeFord, Heim & Osborne and Mr. T. H. Hogsett, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. M. S. Webster and Mr. D. Curtis Reed, amici curiae.
Mr. Joseph McGhee, attorney general, and Mr. C. A. Radcliffe, for defendant in error.
Mr. Max E. Brunszvick, solicitor of Youngstown, and Mr. W. F. MacQueen, solicitor of Niles, submitted brief.

Opinion:
Johnson, J.
Plaintiff in error filed its complaint before the public utilities commission, praying for an order authorizing it to increase its passenger fares on its interurban railroad. The plaintiff in error is a consolidated corporation and as such owns and operates lines of interurban railroad. The rates of fare for passengers on the road are fixed by franchise contracts entered into by the predecessors of plaintiff in error and certain municipalities and boards of county commissioners of counties through which the lines extend.
The .complaint alleges that by reason' of inadequate, insufficient and unreasonable rates of fare complainant is unable to properly and adequately maintain said lines of road and equipment and is unable to perform its duties as a common carrier between said points. The commission filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained, and the complaint dismissed.
This case was argued and submitted on the same day as The Interurban Railway & Terminal Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission, ante, 287, the same questions were presented, and, for the reasons given in the written opinion rendered in deciding that case, the order of the public utilities commission in the present case will be affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Matthias and Donahue, JJ., concur.