Case Name: Steubenville-Canton Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-06-20
Citations: 119 Ohio St. 134
Docket Number: No. 21024
Parties: Steubenville-Canton Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 119
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
Steubenville-Canton Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
(No. 21024
Decided June 20, 1928.)
'Mr. John F. Carlisle, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. E. C. Turner, attorney general, and Mr. A. M. Calland, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The Steubenville-Canton Transportation Company is the grantee of Certificate No. 97, under -which it is authorized to and does operate a bus line between Salineville and Wellsville, a distance of sixteen miles. It applied to the Public Utilities Commission of the state for an extension of its certificate from Wellsville to East Liverpool for the purpose only of carrying passengers to East Liverpool, who boarded its bus at points west of Wells-ville, and passengers from East Liverpool to points west of Wellsville. The proposed extension would be four and one-half miles in length and would parallel The Steubenville, East Liverpool & Beaver Valley Traction Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, which lines are for the most part near the highway in which the proposed extension would be operated. Both companies filed protests against the allowance of the application to the plaintiff in error, and upon hearing the application was denied by the commission upon the ground that evidence adduced is insufficient to show that service now afforded is not reasonably adequate.
This proceeding is governed by the principles applied in the case of Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 116 Ohio St., 92, 155 N. E., 646, and cannot be distinguished upon the ground that that action was based upon an original application, while this is for an extension of a certificate previously issued; nor upon the further ground urged by counsel for plaintiff in error that the competing and protesting lines are interstate carriers.
Order affirmed.
Marshall, C. J., Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.