City of Cleveland v. Pub. Utilities Comm'n of Ohio, No. 25801.

CourtOhio Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTEPHENSON
Citation200 N.E. 765,130 Ohio St. 503
Decision Date18 March 1936
Docket NumberNo. 25801.
PartiesCITY OF CLEVELAND et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO et al.

130 Ohio St. 503
200 N.E. 765

CITY OF CLEVELAND et al.
v.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO et al.

No. 25801.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 18, 1936.


Error to Public Utilities Commission.

Proceeding by the City of Cleveland and another against the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and others. To review an order of the commission, plaintiffs bring error.-[Editorial Statement.]

Order affirmed.

This case comes before the Supreme Court upon a joint petition in error complaining that a final order of the Public Utilities Commission dated November 20, 1935, authorizing the Cleveland Southeastern Bus Company to operate as a common carrier of passengers over a regular route between fixed termini within the cities of Cleveland, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, and Bedford exclusively, is not within the jurisdiction of the commission, is unreasonable and unlawful, and that there is manifest error in the proceedings before the commission and in such order.

The plaintiffs in error, the city of Cleveland and the Cleveland Railway Company, on December 6, 1935, applied for a rehearing before the commission and specified the points of error, unlawfulness, and unreasonableness in such order substantially as in their pending petition in error. The application for rehearing was overruled on December 31, 1935, and the petition in error was filed in this court on January 7, 1936.

The proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission were known as its case No. 7894, and the authority granted the Cleveland Southeastern Bus Company is known as Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 5320.

In accordance with the application of the bus company, the certificate describes the route as follows: ‘Beginning at the corner of Northfield and Forbes Road in the City of Bedford on State Route No. 8; thence on Union Street to the intersection of State Route No. 8 with State Route No. 14; thence over State Route No. 14 through the Cities of Bedford, Maple Heights, Garfield Heights and Cleveland to the Public Square in the City of Cleveland; thence on State Route No. 2 (Superior Avenue) to the Greyhound Terminal at East 9th Street and Superior Avenue; thence south on East 9th Street to the intersection of East 9th Street with State Route No. 14 (Broadway Avenue).’

The certificate imposes the following conditions: ‘Conditioned that no passengers shall be transported whose entire ride is between any two points within the City of Cleveland, Ohio; between any two points within the City of Maple Heights, and between a point in the City of Cleveland and a point in the City of Maple Heights and vice versa. Conditioned that local subdivisions may make reasonable local police regulations within their respective boundaries not inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 614-84 to 614-102 of in General Code of Ohio.’

The order of the commission of November 20, 1935, imposed the following two additional conditions:

‘Conditioned upon the revocation of Certificate No. 2668 now held by the applicant, providing for the maintenance and operation of a motor transportation company carrying persons as a common carrier for hire upon and over a part of said route, which said Certificate No. 2668 has been renounced by the applicant upon condition that this application be granted.

‘* * * and conditioned further that the City of Cleveland may impose such reasonable police regulations as it may see fit with respect to the streets to be traversed within the City of Cleveland.’

The hearing upon the application was held June 7, 1935. Prior to the hearing, the Cleveland Railway Company, on June 1, 1935, and the city of Cleveland, on June 5, 1935, filed motions to continue the hearing until evidence should be submitted that the city of Cleveland had consented to the operation of such bus service. At the beginning of the hearing the plaintiffs in error objected to further proceedings upon the application, on the grounds that the commission was without jurisdiction of the proposed operation and that evidence of consent of the city of Cleveland to the operation had not been obtained. The city of Maple Heights joined in the same motion for the reasons that the commission was without jurisdiction and that the consent of Maple Heights to the operation had not been obtained. These motions were held and subsequently denied in the order of November 20, 1935.

During the hearing on the merits of the application these plaintiffs in error protested against allowance of the application upon the further grounds that the present service between Bedford and Cleveland furnished by common carriers of passengers is reasonably adequate, that the applicant had failed to prove necessity for the operation, and that protestants had proved the operation would be contrary to public convenience and necessity. These protests were overruled by the order of November 20, 1935.

Plaintiffs in error claim:

1. That the order is contrary to the decision of this court in the case of City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission, 126 Ohio St. 210, 184 N.E. 851.

2. The jurisdiction of the commission is statutory only and the Motor Transportation Act excludes the commission of jurisdiction of such route and operation. State ex rel. Thomas v. Thomas, Judge, 121 Ohio St. 450, 169 N.E. 454, and New York Central R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 123 Ohio St. 370, 175 N.E. 596, are relied on to establish the law that the public Utilities Commission has only such jurisdiction as is conferred by statute.

The Motor Transportation Act is included in sections 614-84 to 614-102a, General Code, and the following portions of the Act are pertinent:

Section 614-86, General Code, provides: ‘The public utilities commission of the state of Ohio is hereby vested with power and authority to supervise and regulate each such motor transportation company in this state.’

Section 614-84(a) provides: ‘The term ‘motor transportation company,’ when used in this chapter, * * * shall not include any * * * corporation, * * * in so far as they own, control, operate or manage a motor vehicle or motor vehicles used for the transportation of persons or property, or both, and which are operated exclusively within the territorial limits of a municipal corporation, or within such limits and the territorial limits of municipal corporations immediately contiguous thereto.'

3. The route and operation involved in this case are entirely within the city of Maple Heights and municipal corporations immediately contiguous thereto, and by virtue of section 614-84, General Code, the commission has no jurisdiction.

4. That unincorporated county territory must be involved on the route before the commission has jurisdiction. The following cases are cited to support this contention: New York Central R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, supra; State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Truesdell, No. 24902.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 18, 1936
    ...Valentine, supra, 120 Ohio St. 154, 157, 165 N.E. 730, 731. In view of such determinations we find nothing prejudicial in the questions [200 N.E. 765]propounded to the jury on voir dire as to their interests in or connection with casualty insurance companies in the instant case. The majorit......
  • Columbus & Southern Ohio Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm'n, No. 30535.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • April 24, 1946
    ...Commission may not usurp that function. Sections 614-84 and 614-86, General Code, and City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission, 130 Ohio St. 503, 200 N.E. 765;City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission, 134 Ohio St. 216, 16 N.E.2d 339;Cleveland R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commi......
  • 24 East Sixth St. Corp. v. Co-Operative Pure Milk Ass'n, No. A-99701.
    • United States
    • Court of Common Pleas of Ohio
    • February 17, 1948
    ...to bear in mind the following expression of our Supreme Court per Stephenson, J., contained in Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission, 130 Ohio St. 503, at page 510, 200 N.E. 765, at page 769: ‘Words contained in a legislative enactment are given their plain, usual, and ordinarily accepte......
  • WHITFIELD v. CITY BUS LINES, No. 5034
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 9, 1947
    ...gave the city authority to grant the franchise and establish its route. See City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 130 Ohio St. 503, 200 N.E. 765; Cleveland Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 137 Ohio St. 302, 28 N.E.2d 638. In our consideration of the ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Truesdell, No. 24902.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 18, 1936
    ...Valentine, supra, 120 Ohio St. 154, 157, 165 N.E. 730, 731. In view of such determinations we find nothing prejudicial in the questions [200 N.E. 765]propounded to the jury on voir dire as to their interests in or connection with casualty insurance companies in the instant case. The majorit......
  • Columbus & Southern Ohio Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm'n, No. 30535.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • April 24, 1946
    ...Commission may not usurp that function. Sections 614-84 and 614-86, General Code, and City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission, 130 Ohio St. 503, 200 N.E. 765;City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission, 134 Ohio St. 216, 16 N.E.2d 339;Cleveland R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commi......
  • 24 East Sixth St. Corp. v. Co-Operative Pure Milk Ass'n, No. A-99701.
    • United States
    • Court of Common Pleas of Ohio
    • February 17, 1948
    ...to bear in mind the following expression of our Supreme Court per Stephenson, J., contained in Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission, 130 Ohio St. 503, at page 510, 200 N.E. 765, at page 769: ‘Words contained in a legislative enactment are given their plain, usual, and ordinarily accepte......
  • WHITFIELD v. CITY BUS LINES, No. 5034
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 9, 1947
    ...gave the city authority to grant the franchise and establish its route. See City of Cleveland v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 130 Ohio St. 503, 200 N.E. 765; Cleveland Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 137 Ohio St. 302, 28 N.E.2d 638. In our consideration of the ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT