Travis v. Pub. Util. Comm.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 22599,22629,22598 |
| Parties | Travis Et Al. v. Public Utilities Commission Of Ohio. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Public Utilities Commission - Error proceedings to Supreme Court dismissed - Commission's order not stayed, but enforced before review - Moot questions or abstract propositions, not decided - Jurisdiction of constitutional question must be invoked within statutory time and manner - Only party to proceeding may prosecute error - Error proceedings lie only within 60-day limitation - Application for rehearing prerequisite, and review limited to errors assigned therein.
1. In an error proceeding from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to the Supreme Court, where the party complaining did not apply for or obtain an order of the Commission staying or postponing the enforcement of the order, and did not obtain an order in the Supreme Court allowing such stay, or execute any undertaking conditioned for the payment of damages arising from or caused by the delay in execution of the order complained of, and the successful party so far proceeds in the execution of the order, before the error proceeding is heard in the Supreme Court, that a reversal could not affect the matter at issue a motion to dismiss will be sustained.
2. It is only the duty of this Court to decide actual controversies where the judgment can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions, or abstract propositions or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter at issue in the case before it.
3. While this Court has compulsory jurisdiction in an error proceeding in a case involving questions arising under the Constitution of the United States or of this State, such jurisdiction must be invoked in the manner and within the time limited by statute governing the filing of such error proceeding.
4. An error proceeding from the Public Utilities Commission can only be prosecuted to this Court by a party to the proceeding before the Public Utilities Commission.
5. An error proceeding from the Public Utilities Commission to this Court can only be filed within sixty days from the date of the entry of the final order of the Commission.
6. The filing of an application for rehearing before the Public Utilities Commission is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an error proceeding from the order of the Commission to this Court, and only such matters as are set forth in such application can be urged or relied upon in an error proceeding in this Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Kenneth B. Johnston, for plaintiffs in error Travis and others.
Mr. C S. M. Krumm, for plaintiff in error the Ohio National Bank.
Mr Smith W. Bennett, for plaintiff in error Krumm.
Mr. Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, Mr. T. J. Herbert, Messrs. Arnold, Wright, Purpus & Harlor, and Mr. J. M. Schooler, for defendants in error.
These proceedings in error are brought to review a proceeding known before the Public Utilities Commission as cause No. 6377, in which it was sought to obtain consent and authority of the commission to abandon all freight and passenger service of the electric railway lines of the Scioto Valley Railway & Power Company. The application was heard by the commission, and on September 13,1930, the company was authorized to discontinue and abandon its service, the order to become effective October 1, 1930.
Within the time limited, applications for rehearing were filed by E. J. Travis and the Ohio National Bank, which applications were overruled, and thereupon, within the time limited, error proceedings were filed in this court to reverse the order of the commission, on the ground that the order was unreasonable and unlawful.
When the error proceedings were begun in this court, the parties complaining of the action of the commission, and who were plaintiffs in error in this court, did not apply for or obtain an order of the commission staying or postponing the execution of said order, as contemplated by Section 543, General Code, neither did said parties apply for or obtain an order in the Supreme Court allowing such stay, or execute any undertaking conditioned for the payment of damages arising from or caused by the delay in execution of the order complained of, as provided by Section 548, General Code.
In the meantime, and immediately upon said order of abandonment becoming effective, the Scioto Valley Railway & Power Company proceeded to close its property for traffic, disbanded the organization for the operation of said railway, and discharged the personnel which had theretofore been engaged in the operation of said railway, received bids for the purchase and sale of its property, and disposed of a large portion of the equipment and facilities theretofore used in the operation of the service.
There is an issue of fact as to the extent of the sale of...
To continue reading
Request your trial