Jonas v. Swetland Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Jonas v. Swetland Co.

162 N.E. 45, 119 Ohio St. 12, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 12, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 488, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 279

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 31, 1928

Docket20921

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 N.E. 45 (Jonas v. Swetland Co.) 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

Jonas v. Swetland Co., 162 N.E. 45, 119 Ohio St. 12, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 12, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 488, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 279 (Ohio 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

There being no evidence in the record that the realty company had dedicated its property to the public service, nor had been willing to sell current to the public, under the holding of this court in Hissem v. Guran, 112 Ohio St., 59, 146 N. E., 808, the Swetland Company is not a public utility. The cases cited on behalf of plaintiff in error were cases in which the companies in question furnished service to the public generally, not confining their services to their tenants and employees — an entirely different situation from that disclosed by this record. Not being a public utility, the Swetland Company cannot be compelled to furnish electricity except pursuant to the terms of its voluntary contract. The petition asks that the Swetland Company be forced to furnish electric current at a price to be fixed by the court, which is less than the price *17 voluntarily agreed upon by Jonas and tbe Swetland Company as one of tbe terms of tbe lease and as par-t of tbe consideration thereof. To state tbis proposition is to state that tbe judgment of tbe Court of Appeals must necessarily be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson,, Jones and'MAXTHiAS, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

There being no evidence in the record that the realty company had dedicated its property to the public service, nor had been willing to sell current to the public, under the holding of this court in Hissem v. Guran, 112 Ohio St., 59, 146 N. E., 808, the Swetland Company is not a public utility. The cases cited on behalf of plaintiff in error were cases in which the companies in question furnished service to the public generally, not confining their services to their tenants and employees — an entirely different situation from that disclosed by this record. Not being a public utility, the Swetland Company cannot be compelled to furnish electricity except pursuant to the terms of its voluntary contract. The petition asks that the Swetland Company be forced to furnish electric current at a price to be fixed by the court, which is less than the price *17 voluntarily agreed upon by Jonas and tbe Swetland Company as one of tbe terms of tbe lease and as par-t of tbe consideration thereof. To state tbis proposition is to state that tbe judgment of tbe Court of Appeals must necessarily be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson,, Jones and'MAXTHiAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 N.E. 45, 119 Ohio St. 12, 119 Ohio St. (N.S.) 12, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 488, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonas-v-swetland-co-ohio-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack