Helle v. P.U.C.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | 20953,20934 |
| Citation | 118 Ohio St. 434,161 N.E. 282 |
| Parties | Helle v. Public Utilities Commission Of Ohio. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Public Utilities Commission - Order may be entered nunc pro tunc when - Such orders or judgments presuppose action taken but not recorded - Power limited to recording judicial action already taken and applying clerical omissions - Evidence on application for order limited, how - Order granting irregular operation cannot be changed to regular operation, when.
1. While the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is not a judicial tribunal, it nevertheless exercises quasi-judicial functions and has continuing power over its records and authority to make them speak the truth and in any proceeding before the commission where an order has been made but the same has not been entered on the record in consequence of inadvertence or omission on the part of the commission or any ministerial officer thereof, the commission has power to direct that its order be entered nunc pro tunc upon satisfactory proof of the fact of its rendition.
2. An order or judgment nunc pro tunc presupposes an order or judgment actually rendered at the proper time but not entered upon the journal or other record of a court or other tribunal.
3. The power to enter a nunc pro tunc order is restricted to placing upon the record evidence of judicial action which has been actually taken, and can be exercised only to supply omissions in the exercise of functions that are clerical merely.
4. An application for an order nunc pro tunc, when not grounded upon matters within the personal knowledge of the court or tribunal, can only be supported by evidence of action taken by the court or tribunal at a former period and such evidence must he confined to records or minutes of the court's action at the time or to oral testimony of witnesses having personal knowledge of such action taken by such court or tribunal.
The facts are stated in the Opinion.
Mr. E J. Shover, for plaintiff in error Helle.
Messrs Tolles, Hogsett & Ginn, for plaintiff in error Lake Shore Electric Ry. Co.
Mr Edward C. Turner, attorney general, and Mr. A. M. Calland, for defendant in error.
These two proceedings in error are prosecuted from an order of the Public Utilities Commission, both plaintiffs in error being Protestants against the application heard and decided by the commission. The Huber Motor Transportation Company fled its application on October 24, 1927, for a nunc pro tunc order to correct an alleged clerical error theretofore made by the commission in the issuance of a certificate of convenience and necessity authorizing an irregular motor transportation route for transportation of freight.
In September, 1923, Bertha M. Huber filed an affidavit setting forth that on or prior to April 28, 1923, she had operated a regular route for the transportation of freight between Green Springs, Ohio, and Cleveland, Ohio, and upon this affidavit certificate No. 345 was issued authorizing a regular freight transportation operation. On the same date Bertha M. Huber filed another affidavit setting forth that on and prior to April 28, 1923, she had operated in good faith a regular route between Green Springs, Ohio, and Willard, Ohio, Tiffin, Ohio, Fostoria, Ohio, Findlay, Ohio, Prairie Depot, Ohio, Pemberville, Ohio, Elmore, Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, Oak Harbor, Ohio, Port Clinton, Ohio. A map of eleven counties showing the points named and the highways connecting them was attached to the affidavit, and the affidavit was supported by affidavits of other parties stating that Mrs. Huber had been operating trucks for transportation of freight upon and over the highways, without definitely stating the points covered by such operation. No other testimony was introduced at that time and of course none was required. Acting thereon the commission issued certificate No. 1123, authorizing an irregular operation to and from Green Springs, in connection with the other points named. Without going into detail it is sufficient to state that the affidavit described an irregular route, and that it lacked many of the requirements to render it sufficient as an affidavit covering a regular route. Some time thereafter, on application, the commission authorized a transfer of both certificates to the Huber Motor Transportation Company. The prayer of the application for the nunc pro tunc order was to have the irregular certificate corrected by making it a regular certificate. The application was protested by a number of transportation companies, including the plaintiffs in error in these error proceedings. Upon the hearing, evidence was taken, and the court granted the nunc pro tunc order. In granting the application the chairman of the commission among other things, said:
"In asmuch as this is a mere proceeding in which the party is attempting to have that done which the commission intended to do at that time, so that the records will disclose the facts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial