Case Name: The City of Cincinnati v. The Public Utilities Commission et al.; Mergler et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission; Reedy et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission; Rogan et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission; Hosbrook, etc., v. The Public Utilities Commission; Taft et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission et al.; Gatch et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission; Tatgenhorst, Jr., v. The Public Utilities Commission; The United States Cast Iron, Pipe & Foundry Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission; Yerkes v. The Public Utilities Commission; Hosbrook, etc., v. The Public Utilities Commission
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1922-05-16
Citations: 105 Ohio St. 181
Docket Number: Nos. 16972, 17005 to 17014
Parties: The City of Cincinnati v. The Public Utilities Commission et al. Mergler et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Reedy et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Rogan et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Hosbrook, etc., v. The Public Utilities Commission. Taft et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission et al. Gatch et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Tatgenhorst, Jr., v. The Public Utilities Commission. The United States Cast Iron, Pipe & Foundry Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Yerkes v. The Public Utilities Commission. Hosbrook, etc., v. The Public Utilities Commission.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Johnson, Hough and Wanamaker, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 105
Pages: 181–219

Head Matter:
The City of Cincinnati v. The Public Utilities Commission et al. Mergler et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Reedy et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Rogan et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Hosbrook, etc., v. The Public Utilities Commission. Taft et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission et al. Gatch et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Tatgenhorst, Jr., v. The Public Utilities Commission. The United States Cast Iron, Pipe & Foundry Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission. Yerkes v. The Public Utilities Commission. Hosbrook, etc., v. The Public Utilities Commission.
Public utilities commission — Fixing rates and charges — Valuation of property determined, how —Section 499-9, General Code — Increase in value after acquisition — Depreciation or deferred maintenance charges determined, how — Section 614-49, General Code — Depreciation fund expended, how— Section 614-50, General Code — Telephone companies — Reasonableness of schedule rates — Loss on part of system but gain upon whole property — Exchange areas and zoning system— Municipality and suburbs — Increasing tolls to reduce prolonged conversations.
(Nos. 16972, 17005 to 17014
Decided May 16, 1922.)
Error to the Public Utilities Commission.
Mr. Saul Zielonka, city solicitor; Mr. William Jerome Kuertz; Mr. Clifford C. Cordes and Mr. Alfred Bettman, for plaintiff in error in Cause No. 16972.
Mr. John G. Price, attorney general; Mr. E. E. Corn and Mr. Joseph W. Heintzman, for defendants in error in Cause No. 16972.
Mr. Alfred Bettman, for plaintiffs in error in Causes Nos. 17005 to 17014.
Mr. John G. Price, attorney general, and Mr. E. E. Corn, for defendants in error in Causes Nos. 17005 to 17014.

Opinion:
It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the order of the said public utilities commission of Ohio be, and the same is hereby, reversed. And inasmuch as the judges who concur in the judgment in this case do not agree upon the grounds upon which the judgment is put, no authoritative opinion is filed, but the several judges concurring may file opinions setting forth their views.
It is further ordered that said cause be remanded to the public utilities commission for further proceeding according to law.
Orders reversed.
Marshall, C. J., Johnson, Hough and Wanamaker, JJ., concur.