Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

164 N.E. 763, 119 Ohio St. 531, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 531, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 76, 1929 Ohio LEXIS 421

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1929

Docket21317

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 N.E. 763 (Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Ohio Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 164 N.E. 763, 119 Ohio St. 531, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 531, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 76, 1929 Ohio LEXIS 421 (Ohio 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

In this case the commission ordered the Central Ohio Transit Company to desist from operating any busses except the seven-passenger busses which the original operators were actually operating on April 28, 1923. This order was entirely proper. The statutory provisions as to application, notice, and hearing apply to increases of equipment as well as to original applications to operate. Columbus Ry. Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 113 Ohio St., 634, 150 N. E., 237. An increase permitted by the commission without compliance with these statutory requirements is void. Cincinnati Traction Co. v Public Utilities Commission, 113 Ohio St., 668, 150 N. E., *538 308; Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 115 Ohio St., 358, 154 N. E., 320.

It is claimed that, since the objecting competitor in this case delayed more than two years before complaining of the failure of the Public Utilities Commission to comply with the requirements of Section 614-91, General Code, and Section 614-93, General Code, as to the increase of equipment, the Public Utilities Commission is now precluded from ordering the Central Ohio Transit Company to return to the equipment authorized under its original certificate granted upon affidavit. This contention, however, is untenable. The motor transportation statute was designed, not for the benefit of motor bus operators, but to serve the public convenience and necessity. Whatever might be the effect of delay upon the rights of a competing- carrier under the circumstances set out in this record, such delay in objecting to an illegal operation cannot preclude the commission in a proceeding properly raising the question from taking action under the statutes and under the rules of the commission to rectify such illegal operation.

Order affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Robinson and Matthias, JJ., concur. Kinkade, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen, J.

In this case the commission ordered the Central Ohio Transit Company to desist from operating any busses except the seven-passenger busses which the original operators were actually operating on April 28, 1923. This order was entirely proper. The statutory provisions as to application, notice, and hearing apply to increases of equipment as well as to original applications to operate. Columbus Ry. Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 113 Ohio St., 634, 150 N. E., 237. An increase permitted by the commission without compliance with these statutory requirements is void. Cincinnati Traction Co. v Public Utilities Commission, 113 Ohio St., 668, 150 N. E., *538 308; Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 115 Ohio St., 358, 154 N. E., 320.

It is claimed that, since the objecting competitor in this case delayed more than two years before complaining of the failure of the Public Utilities Commission to comply with the requirements of Section 614-91, General Code, and Section 614-93, General Code, as to the increase of equipment, the Public Utilities Commission is now precluded from ordering the Central Ohio Transit Company to return to the equipment authorized under its original certificate granted upon affidavit. This contention, however, is untenable. The motor transportation statute was designed, not for the benefit of motor bus operators, but to serve the public convenience and necessity. Whatever might be the effect of delay upon the rights of a competing- carrier under the circumstances set out in this record, such delay in objecting to an illegal operation cannot preclude the commission in a proceeding properly raising the question from taking action under the statutes and under the rules of the commission to rectify such illegal operation.

Order affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Robinson and Matthias, JJ., concur. Kinkade, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.E. 763, 119 Ohio St. 531, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 531, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 76, 1929 Ohio LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-ohio-transit-co-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack