From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Motor Service v. Util. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 13, 1928
162 N.E. 429 (Ohio 1928)

Opinion

Nos. 21068 and 21069

Decided June 13, 1928.

Public Utilities Commission — Motor transportation companies — Order certificating one of two operators over same route — Not disturbed unless it affirmatively appears order unreasonable and unlawful — Certificate revoked because applicant not corporation as alleged in affidavit — New certificate granted over protest of prior applicant for extension.

ERROR to the Public Utilities Commission.

This case arises upon the following facts: The plaintiff in error applied for the extension of its certificate of public convenience and necessity from Granville to Columbus. This extension was denied for the reason that upon February 9, 1928, the commission had granted a certificate to the Columbus Zanesville Transportation Company over the same route. The Columbus Zanesville Transportation Company had been operating in good faith over this same route prior to April 28, 1923, but its certificate was revoked because of the fact that the company in question was not a body corporate upon April 28, 1923, as alleged in the affidavit upon which its certificate was based, and such revocation was upheld by this court. The Columbus Zanesville Transportation Company then filed an application for a new certificate on August 17, 1927. The application for extension by the Granville Newark Company was filed March 31, 1927. The commission granted the route to the Columbus Zanesville Transportation Company, but restricted it by the order that it should carry no passengers whose ride is between Granville and Newark, over which part of the route the Granville Newark Company is operating.

Case No. 21068 is the error proceeding filed by the plaintiff in error, attacking the commission's order in denying the extension sought by the Granville Newark Motor Service Company. Case No. 21069 is the error proceeding brought by the plaintiff in error, attacking the order of the Public Utilities Commission which granted the route in question to the Columbus Zanesville Transportation Company.

Mr. John F. Carlisle and Mr. Wayne C. Overturf, for plaintiff in error. Mr. E.C. Turner, attorney general, Mr. A.M. Calland, Mr. E.R. Meyer, and Mr. D.H. Armstrong, for defendant in error.


This order of the Public Utilities Commission simply puts the two companies back in the original status quo, with the exception of the fact that the plaintiff in error is now protected better than before; for the restriction as to the carriage of passengers whose whole ride is between Granville and Newark did not exist prior to the issuance of the present order. The commission had before it the situation where there were two applicants for certificates of convenience and necessity to operate over the same particular route between fixed termini. The commission, upon hearing, issued a certificate to the applicant which it found to be the best fitted to perform the service required by the public convenience and necessity, and denied the certificate to the other applicant. This court will not disturb such order, unless it affirmatively appears from the record that the order is unreasonable and unlawful. Royal Green Coach Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 110 Ohio St. 41, 143 N.E. 547.

Upon consideration of the entire record, no such affirmative showing is made, and hence we affirm the orders of the Public Utilities Commission.

Orders affirmed.

MARSHALL, C.J., DAY, ALLEN, KINKADE and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.

JONES, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Motor Service v. Util. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 13, 1928
162 N.E. 429 (Ohio 1928)
Case details for

Motor Service v. Util. Comm

Case Details

Full title:GRANVILLE NEWARK MOTOR SERVICE, INC. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 13, 1928

Citations

162 N.E. 429 (Ohio 1928)
162 N.E. 429

Citing Cases

Lorain Motor Coach Co. v. P.U.C.

This controversy, therefore, narrows down to the simple question of the reasonableness and lawfulness of the…