Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 303

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 1918

DocketNo. 15849

StatusPublished

This text of 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 303 (Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light 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

Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 303 (Ohio 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Plaintiff in error filed its complaint before the public utilities commission, praying for an order authorizing it to increase its passenger fares on its interurban railroad. The plaintiff in error is a consolidated corporation and as such owns and operates lines of interurban railroad. The rates of fare for passengers on the road are fixed by franchise contracts entered into by the predecessors of plaintiff in error and certain municipalities and boards of county commissioners of counties through which the lines extend.

The .complaint alleges that by reason’ of inadequate, insufficient and unreasonable rates of fare complainant is unable to properly and adequately maintain said lines of road and equipment and is unable to perform its duties as a common carrier between said points. The commission filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained, and the complaint dismissed.

This case was argued and submitted on the same day as The Interurban Railway & Terminal Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission, ante, 287, the same questions were presented, and, for the reasons given in the written opinion rendered in deciding that case, the order of the public utilities commission in the present case will be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Matthias and Donahue, JJ., concur.

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

Johnson, J.

Plaintiff in error filed its complaint before the public utilities commission, praying for an order authorizing it to increase its passenger fares on its interurban railroad. The plaintiff in error is a consolidated corporation and as such owns and operates lines of interurban railroad. The rates of fare for passengers on the road are fixed by franchise contracts entered into by the predecessors of plaintiff in error and certain municipalities and boards of county commissioners of counties through which the lines extend.

The .complaint alleges that by reason’ of inadequate, insufficient and unreasonable rates of fare complainant is unable to properly and adequately maintain said lines of road and equipment and is unable to perform its duties as a common carrier between said points. The commission filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained, and the complaint dismissed.

This case was argued and submitted on the same day as The Interurban Railway & Terminal Co. v. The Public Utilities Commission, ante, 287, the same questions were presented, and, for the reasons given in the written opinion rendered in deciding that case, the order of the public utilities commission in the present case will be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Matthias and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoning-shenango-railway-light-co-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1918.