Case Name: BISHOP v. SMALL
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-05-29
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 410
Docket Number: No. 648
Parties: BISHOP v. SMALL
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 410–410

Head Matter:
No. 588
BISHOP v. SMALL
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Montgomery Co.
No. 648.
Decided May 29, 1925
639. INJUNCTION—Will not be issued where its effect is to supersede jurisdiction of specially created tribunal.
973. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION— Must approve of sale or transfer of permit issued to original bus line operator, before contract to sell same is valid.
Attorneys—Estabrook, Finn & McKee, Dayton, for Bishop; Mannix, Crawford and Bil-lingsley, Greenville; Gross & Crawford, Dayton; Myers & Myers, Greenville, for Small.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
An action was brought by John Bishop for an injunction to restrain W. O. Small from opierating a bus .line between Dayton '¡and Greenville. The permit was regularly issued to Small by the Public Utilities Commission, said permit not having been revoked, or modified in any respect by the Commission.
Bishop claimed the right to operate said bus line and to exclude Small from interfering with such operation, by virtue of a contract with Small whereby the right to operate said bus line was granted to Bishop. Another contract was shown in evidence whereby Small agreed to sell the bus line to Bishop for a certain consideration. The Court of Appeals held:
1. Neither of these contracts have been approved by the Commission, nor has consent been given by it to Small, allowing him to sell or transfer his bus line permit.
2. Since the passage of the Utilities Commission Act the right to operate a bus line and the safeguarding of the public interests therein have been confided to the Public Utilities commission.
3. To issue an injunction under the circumstances; would have the effect of transferring the duties vested exclusively in the Public Utilities Commission, to the courts.
4. A court of equity will not issue an injunction where its effect would supersede the jurisdiction of a tribunal specially created by law over such a subject.
5. A permanent injunction will therefore, be refused, and the injunction heretofore allowed will be dissolved.