Case Name: In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: Ohio Water Service Co., Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, Appellee. (Two cases.); In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: City of Niles, Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District et al., Appellees. (Two cases.); In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: City of Youngstown, Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1953-11-04
Citations: 160 Ohio St. 313
Docket Number: Nos. 33688, 33689, 33690, 33691 and 33692
Parties: In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: Ohio Water Service Co., Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, Appellee. (Two cases.) In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: City of Niles, Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District et al., Appellees. (Two cases.) In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: City of Youngstown, Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District et al., Appellees.
Judges: Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taft, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 160
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: Ohio Water Service Co., Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, Appellee. (Two cases.) In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: City of Niles, Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District et al., Appellees. (Two cases.) In re The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: City of Youngstown, Appellant, v. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District et al., Appellees.
(Nos. 33688, 33689, 33690, 33691 and 33692
Decided November 4, 1953.)
Messrs. Mitchell, Mitchell & Reed and Messrs. Dunbar, Dunbar & Ktensle, for appellant in causes Nos. 33688 and 33689.
Mr. Mitchell F. Shaker, city solicitor, for appellant in causes Nos. 33690 and 33691.
Mr. E. E. Eunt, director of law, and Mr. P. Richard Schumann, for appellant in cause No. 33692.
Mr. W. P. Barnum, for appellee The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District in causes Nos. 33688, 33689, 33690, 33691 and 33692.

Opinion:
It is ordered and adjudged that these appeals as of right be, and the same hereby are, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.
Appeals dismissed.
Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Taft, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.