Opinion
Nos. 39575 and 39811
Decided March 16, 1966.
Prohibition — Not avaliable to prevent anticipated erroneous judgment — Suit to prevent Common Pleas Court from deciding injunction actions.
IN PROHIBITION.
These two actions in prohibition, originating in this court and brought by The Mansfield Telephone Company, an Ohio corporation, as relator, seek writs prohibiting James J. Mayer and S.H. Cramer as judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, respondents, from proceeding to hear and decide two injunction actions instituted in the latter court, one by the city of Mansfield and the other by the Multi-Channel T.V. Cable Company of Mansfield, to restrain relator and its subsidiary, the Mansfield Telvue Company, from installing on relator's telephone poles and over the rights of way of the city of Mansfield, without the consent of such municipality, coaxial cables for use in furnishing community antenna television service to subscribers thereto.
In case No. 39575, a demurrer has been filed to the petition by the respondents on the grounds that it states no cause of action, and that this court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. In case No. 39811, intervening respondent Multi-Channel has moved for judgment on the pleadings, viz., the petition and the answer.
It is alleged in the petitions that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio issued its findings and orders authorizing relator to revise its tariffs so as to establish tariff schedules for all its exchanges to provide channels for furnishing community antenna television service, and that pursuant thereto relator filed its tariff sheets with the commission.
Relator takes the position that its operations in issue are strictly of a public utility nature and subject exclusively to the jurisdiction and control of the Public Utilities Commission, and that the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County is completely lacking in jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Section 4903.12, Revised Code, which recites in part:
"No court other than the Supreme Court shall have power to review, suspend, or delay any order made by the Public Utilities Commission * * *."
Messrs. Power, Griffith, Jones Bell and Mr. John R. Jones, for relator.
Mr. Robert K. Rath, city solicitor, Mr. Richard M. Christiansen, Messrs. Steer, Strauss, White Tobias, Mr. Robert J. White and Mr. James J. Ryan, for respondents.
The rule is firmly established that the Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction and, as such, possesses the authority initially to determine its own jurisdiction over both the person and the subject matter in an action before it, subject to the right of appeal; and generally prohibition, an extraordinary remedy entertained with caution, will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. State, ex rel. Knights Templar Masonic Mutual Aid Assn., v. Common Pleas Court of Meigs County, 124 Ohio St. 493, 499, 179 N.E. 415, 417; State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 151 Ohio St. 397, 86 N.E.2d 464; and State, ex rel. Bier, v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, 175 Ohio St. 355, 194 N.E.2d 849.
Respondents point out that in the injunction actions referred to relator herein has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas by motion, demurrer or answer, and that such court has been given no opportunity to pass on its own jurisdiction over the subject matter or persons involved.
In a situation like this we need go no further. The demurrer to the petition should be and is sustained in case No. 39575, and Multi-Channel's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be and is sustained in case No. 39811.
Judgments accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.