Northern Ohio Tel. Co. v. Putnam, s. 34222

• Decision Date: 02 November 1955
• Docket Number: Nos. 34222,34254,34259,s. 34222
• Citation: 130 N.E.2d 91,164 Ohio St. 238
• Parties: , 57 O.O. 465, 12 P.U.R.3d 392 The NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE CO. v. PUTNAM et al., Judges. The NOVA TELEPHONE CO., Appellee, v. The NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE CO., Appellant. The NOVA TELEPHONE CO., Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 238

164 Ohio St. 238

130 N.E.2d 91, 57 O.O. 465, 12 P.U.R.3d 392

The NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE CO. v. PUTNAM et al., Judges.

The NOVA TELEPHONE CO., Appellee, v. The NORTHERN OHIO TELEPHONE CO., Appellant.

The NOVA TELEPHONE CO., Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of Ohio, Appellee.

Nos. 34222, 34254, 34259.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 2, 1955.

Power, Griffith & Jones, Clumbus, and Aigler & Aigler, Bellevue, for relator in cause No. 34222 and appellant in cause No. 34254.

C. W. Chorpening, Ashland, for respondents in cause No. 34222, appellee in cause No. 34254 and appellant in cause No. 34259.

C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., Ralph N. Mahaffey, Columbus, and Everett H. Krueger, Jr., Cleveland, for appellee in cause No. 34259.

PER CURIAM.

The Public Utilities Commission, in cause No. 34259, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of Nova for the reason that the notice of appeal does not set forth the errors complained of in the order appealed from.

A majority of the court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss is well taken. However, in view of the differences existing between the parties hereto, and in the hope of putting an end to litigation, it is believed that the wiser course is to consider the appeal as though it were properly perfected.

Although the facts herein are somewhat complicated and the maintenance of three lawsuits simultaneously in three different tribunals is somewhat confusing, the question involved in all three causes is relatively simple: Who has the responsibility for determining the operating area of a public utility?

It is the contention of Nova, in its appeal from the Public Utilities Commission, that the order can not be affirmed because Nova was furnishing service in the disputed area and Northern did not obtain a certificate of necessity under Section 4905.24 Revised Code. The record discloses that no service was furnished by Nova in the disputed area. Nova did not own the plant or station equipment that had been providing telephone service in the disputed area. That was owned by those who received their telephone service therefrom. If, by receiving and sending calls from and to telephones in the disputed area, Nova was rendering telephone service, such service was rendered by Nova not beyond the point where it connected with the line which went into the disputed area and which was owned by others. That point was outside the disputed area. Some weight is given this argument by the Court of Appeals, which, in its opinion on the motion to dissolve the restraining order, said:

'It is our judgment that a refusal to change this map is not equivalent to a positive order permitting the defendant to give service to the parties in dispute as contemplated by Section 4905.24, R.C.' (Emphasis added.)

This argument, however, overlooks the fundamental question presented by these actions. The question involved here is not whether Nova was providing adequate service in the area, but whether the disputed area is in the service or operating area of Nova.

Although there is no statute which specifically gives the Public Utilities Commission authority to determine a boundary between the service areas of adjoining telephone companies, its power to do so would appear unquestioned both in reason and in law.

Section 614-3, General Code, Section 4905.04, Revised Code, provides:

'The public utilities commission of Ohio is hereby vested with the power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate 'public utilities' and 'railroads' as herein defined and provided and to require all public utilities to furnish their products and render all services exacted by the commission, or by law * * *.'

Both companies involved...