Case Name: Stony's Trucking Company, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1989-06-07
Citations: 43 Ohio St. 3d 131
Docket Number: No. 87-2003
Parties: Stony's Trucking Company, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 43
Pages: 131–133

Head Matter:
Stony's Trucking Company, Appellant, v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.
[Cite as Stony’s Trucking Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1989), 43 Ohio St. 3d 131.]
(No. 87-2003
Submitted April 4, 1989
Decided June 7, 1989.)
Sanborn, Brandon & Duvall Co., L.P.A., James Duvall and Clifton G. Valentine, Jr., for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, Robert S. Tongren and Thomas W. McNamee, for appellee.
James R. Stiverson, for intervening appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Stony's argues that it was unreasonable and unlawful for the commission to deny its application to alter or amend 784-1. We disagree and affirm the order of the commission.
Stony's application was filed pursuant to R.C. 4921.10, which provides, in part, that "[t]he commission may, for good cause, revoke, alter, or amend any certificate issued under sections 4921.02 to 4921.32 of the Revised Code."
Appellant admits that the application was brought to "split" a certificate, with the intent of transferring a portion of the authority in a subsequent proceeding. The law is well-settled, however, that the commission cannot lawfully approve the transfer of a portion of a certificate, or any procedure that is designed to accomplish such an end. See Braddock v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1940), 137 Ohio St. 59, 17 O.O. 378, 27 N.E. 2d 1016; and Harold D. Miller, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 53, 39 O.O. 2d 44, 225 N.E. 2d 269.
The commission determined that the bifurcated procedure envisioned by Stony's would require it to inappropriately do indirectly that which it cannot do directly under the strictures discussed in Braddock and Miller. We agree. The commission clearly did not abuse its discretion in failing to allow the requested amendment.
Finding nothing unreasonable or unlawful in the decision, we affirm the order of the commission.
Order affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., concur.
Wright, J., concurs in judgment only.
Holmes, H. Brown and Brogan, JJ., dissent.
James A. Brogan, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for Res-nick, J.