Dayton (City) v. Allen
This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 556 (Dayton (City) v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Epitomized Opinion
The Commission ordered the consolidation of the Bell Telephone Co. and the Ohio State Telephone Co. without establishing new rates. After the consolidation and while a petition of the Bell Telephone Co. to establish new rates was pending before the Commission, the plaintiff filed this suit for an injunction to restrain the enforcing of payment of the new rates. On general demurrer to the answer the court sustained the demurrer to the petition, holding:
1. 614-61 GC. enjoins upon the Commission the duty of establishing new rates before authorizing the consolidation of two or more telephone companies.
2. No other court than the Supreme Court has the authority to control the Public Utilities Commlission in the exercise of its powers or to determine in a litigated case whether they have violated those powers.
3. Although the Commission is not made a party defendant to this action, its powers and orders are indirectly interfered with.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Ohio Law. Abs. 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-city-v-allen-ohctcomplmontgo-1924.