Salisbury Transp. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

Salisbury Transp. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

159 N.E. 474, 117 Ohio St. 606, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 44, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 606, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 204

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1927

Docket20735

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 N.E. 474 (Salisbury Transp. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.) 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

Salisbury Transp. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 159 N.E. 474, 117 Ohio St. 606, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 44, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 606, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 204 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

This case originated before the Public Utilities Commission, on the application of plaintiff in error, the Salisbury Transportation Company, for an amendment of its two certificates, one authorizing an operation between Canton and Alliance, and the other between Canton and Louisville, an intermediate point, so as to authorize it to establish new time schedules between said termini. The effect of such application, if allowed, would be to permit, by bus connection under the schedules applied for, continuous service between Canton and Alliance, where theretofore a modified local service had obtained. Protests against the granting of the application were duly filed.

The commission, as disclosed by its order, was of opinion that the granting of the present application would emasculate its former order covering the same territory, made about three months previously, and therefore denied the present application of the plaintiff in error, whereupon error was prosecuted to this court.

The questions presented to the Public Utilities Commission, and now upon error to this court, lie in the domain of fact, and no legal questions are herein presented that have not been heretofore determined by this court. Upon this record this court cannot find that conditions have materially changed since the commission made its previous order, nor that the commission’s order in denying the application of the Salisbury Transportation Company for the establishment of the new time schedules was unreasonable or unlawful; neither can we find that the public necessity and convenience *46 in the territory sought to be served require the establishment of the new time schedule applied for, under present conditions, and in view of the existing service prevailing between Canton and Alliance and between Canton and Louisville.

The older of the commission will be affirmed.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.)

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

BY THE COURT.

This case originated before the Public Utilities Commission, on the application of plaintiff in error, the Salisbury Transportation Company, for an amendment of its two certificates, one authorizing an operation between Canton and Alliance, and the other between Canton and Louisville, an intermediate point, so as to authorize it to establish new time schedules between said termini. The effect of such application, if allowed, would be to permit, by bus connection under the schedules applied for, continuous service between Canton and Alliance, where theretofore a modified local service had obtained. Protests against the granting of the application were duly filed.

The commission, as disclosed by its order, was of opinion that the granting of the present application would emasculate its former order covering the same territory, made about three months previously, and therefore denied the present application of the plaintiff in error, whereupon error was prosecuted to this court.

The questions presented to the Public Utilities Commission, and now upon error to this court, lie in the domain of fact, and no legal questions are herein presented that have not been heretofore determined by this court. Upon this record this court cannot find that conditions have materially changed since the commission made its previous order, nor that the commission’s order in denying the application of the Salisbury Transportation Company for the establishment of the new time schedules was unreasonable or unlawful; neither can we find that the public necessity and convenience *46 in the territory sought to be served require the establishment of the new time schedule applied for, under present conditions, and in view of the existing service prevailing between Canton and Alliance and between Canton and Louisville.

The older of the commission will be affirmed.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.E. 474, 117 Ohio St. 606, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 44, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 606, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salisbury-transp-co-v-pub-util-comm-ohio-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack