Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

100 Ohio St. (N.S.) 331

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1919

DocketNo. 15356

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Ohio St. (N.S.) 331 (Toledo & Ohio Central Railway 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

Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 100 Ohio St. (N.S.) 331 (Ohio 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Plaintiff in error brings this proceeding in this court by virtue of Section 544, General Code, and seeks to reverse, vacate or modify an order of the Public Utilities Commission which required the reduction of rates for the transportation of bituminous coal in car loads from points in the Hocking coal district to Toledo. Various grounds are relied upon by the plaintiff in all of which it contends that the order complained of is unlawful and unreasonable. Substantially these grounds are the same and present the same questions as were presented in Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, ante, 321, this day decided, and for the reasons given in the opinion rendered in deciding that case the order of the Commission in the present case will be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Wanamaker and Robinson, JJ., concur.

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

Johnson, J.

Plaintiff in error brings this proceeding in this court by virtue of Section 544, General Code, and seeks to reverse, vacate or modify an order of the Public Utilities Commission which required the reduction of rates for the transportation of bituminous coal in car loads from points in the Hocking coal district to Toledo. Various grounds are relied upon by the plaintiff in all of which it contends that the order complained of is unlawful and unreasonable. Substantially these grounds are the same and present the same questions as were presented in Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, ante, 321, this day decided, and for the reasons given in the opinion rendered in deciding that case the order of the Commission in the present case will be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Wanamaker and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Ohio St. (N.S.) 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-ohio-central-railway-co-v-public-utilities-commission-ohio-1919.