City of Portsmouth v. Public Utilities Commission, No. 32067

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; WEYGANDT
Citation154 Ohio St. 174,93 N.E.2d 563
Parties, 42 O.O. 230 CITY OF PORTSMOUTH et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
Decision Date19 July 1950
Docket NumberNo. 32067

Page 174

154 Ohio St. 174
93 N.E.2d 563, 42 O.O. 230
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH et al.
v.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
No. 32067.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
July 19, 1950.

John Robert Jones, Columbus, Lowell C. Thompson, Portsmouth, Robert Koch, Van Wert, Delbert Tedrick and Earl Henry, Cambridge, for appellants.

Page 175

Donald C. Power, Columbus, for Ohio Consolidated Telephone Co.

Herbert S. Duffy, Attorney General, and Kenneth B. Johnston, Columbus, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company filed with the Public Utilities Commission an application for authority to increase its rates and charges for telephone service furnished subscribers in Ohio. There had been no increase in applicant's rates in any exchange since 1927 and none in some exchanges since 1920.

The commission found, upon the undisputed testimony, that the proposed schedule of rates sought to be established by the applicant will yield to it a rate of return of 5.6 per cent on the lowest present fair value that can be attributed to its property, and that the rate of return would be still less if the commission accepted the applicant's claimed value. The commission entered an order authorizing the filing and establishing of the proposed increased rates and charges.

[93 N.E.2d 564] Applications for rehearing were overruled and the cause is in this court on appeal by the city of Portsmouth, city of Cambridge and Convoy Equity Exchange.

The city of Cambridge did not enter its appearance in the proceeding before the Public Utilities Commission, but, after the finding, opinion and order of the commission were issued, filed a petition for determination that it is a party to the proceeding. That petition was denied.

The objections at the hearing were made on behalf of parties who did not file an application for rehearing and are not parties to this appeal. The above-named appellants did not join in those objections and cannot avail themselves of objections filed on behalf of one not a party to this appeal.

Page 176

It appearing, therefore, that no party qualified has perfected an appeal in this court, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C. J., and MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TURNER and TAFT, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • State of S.D. Water Management Bd. Approving Water Permit No. 1791-2, Matter of, No. 14296
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 27 Junio 1984
    ...join in those objections may not avail themselves of such objections in court proceedings. City of Portsmouth v. Public Utilities Com'n, 154 Ohio St. 174, 93 N.E.2d 563 (1950); 73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Proc. Sec. 214 (1983). Therefore, we will consider only those issues on a......
  • Mad River Tp., Montgomery County, In re, No. 134985
    • United States
    • Court of Common Pleas of Ohio
    • 27 Julio 1970
    ...standing in the eyes of the law. In re Estate of Davis, 107 Ohio App. 52, 156 N.E.2d 321; Portsmouth v. Public Utilities Commission, 154 Ohio St. 174, 93 N.E.2d 563. If the city of Dayton has the notion that the commissioners have abused their discretion and thereby injured the parties in t......
2 cases
  • State of S.D. Water Management Bd. Approving Water Permit No. 1791-2, Matter of, No. 14296
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 27 Junio 1984
    ...join in those objections may not avail themselves of such objections in court proceedings. City of Portsmouth v. Public Utilities Com'n, 154 Ohio St. 174, 93 N.E.2d 563 (1950); 73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Proc. Sec. 214 (1983). Therefore, we will consider only those issues on a......
  • Mad River Tp., Montgomery County, In re, No. 134985
    • United States
    • Court of Common Pleas of Ohio
    • 27 Julio 1970
    ...standing in the eyes of the law. In re Estate of Davis, 107 Ohio App. 52, 156 N.E.2d 321; Portsmouth v. Public Utilities Commission, 154 Ohio St. 174, 93 N.E.2d 563. If the city of Dayton has the notion that the commissioners have abused their discretion and thereby injured the parties in t......

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