Case Name: The State, ex rel. The Mahoning Bus Co., v. Gessner, Judge
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-04-27
Citations: 114 Ohio St. 652
Docket Number: No. 19631
Parties: The State, ex rel. The Mahoning Bus Co., v. Gessner, Judge.
Judges: Jones, Matthias, Day, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 114
Pages: 652–654

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. The Mahoning Bus Co., v. Gessner, Judge.
(No. 19631
Decided April 27, 1926.)
Mr. J. Eugene Roberts, for plaintiff.
Messrs. Harrington, De Ford, Huxley & Smith, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Section 549, General Code, provides as follows: "No court other than the Supreme Court shall have power to review, suspend or delay any order made by the commission."
Has the commission, under the facts alleged in the petition, made any order with which the Mahoning county common pleas court is attempting to interfere?
Section 614-86, General Code (111 O. L., 20, effective June, 1925), vests the Public Utilities Commission with power and authority to supervise and regulate motor transportation companies in this state. These powers have this qualification or proviso:
"Provided, further, that no motor transportation company operating under a certificate of convenience and necessity shall carry persons whose complete ride is wholly within the territorial limits of a municipal corporation, or within such limits and the territorial limits of municipal corporations immediately contiguous thereto, except with the consent of such municipal corporation or municipal corporations."
It is not alleged in the petition that the relator obtained any certificate from the commission granting it the right to operate within territory whose complete ride is within the territorial limits of any city or contiguous cities. If the certificate does not include such urban limits, the injunctive order sought in the Mahoning county, court, restraining relator's operation within those limits, will not impinge upon the order of the commission; nor, in such event, would the decree of the Mahoning county court have the effect of suspending or delaying the order made by the commission. The construction of Section 614-86, General Code, need not be determined here. It suffices to say that we are unable to see how, in the injunction proceeding, the order of the commission will be disturbed.
For the reasons stated the demurrer to the petition of the relator is sustained.
Demurrer sustained.
Jones, Matthias, Day, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Marshall, C. J., and Allen, J., concur in judgment.