Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Opinion, per MATTHIAS, J.

this measure was, therefore, complete on June 14, 1911, and consequently upon that date it became a law. The legislature in this instance, for reasons presumably satisfactory to itself, postponed the date upon which the entire act should take effect and be in force to July 1, 1911.

The purpose of this legislation was not only to prevent a public utility from demanding unjust or unreasonable charges for its service, but to prevent it from giving undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or corporation over others, or from receiving a greater or less compensation for service rendered or to be rendered than it receives from others for a like service under substantially the same circumstances and conditions. It sought to prevent unjust discrimination or preference, whether made by contract or otherwise, and to obviate conditions which had previously existed whereby public utilities had been permitted to grant favors to some customers at the expense and to the detriment of others. This act prohibits a public utility from charging in any instance a rate different from that specified in the schedule filed with the commission under the requirements of this act, and also from extending to any person, firm or corporation any privilege not uniformly extended to all under like circumstances; and it requires that every public utility file with the commission a copy of any contract relating to any service, rate or charge. The general provisions of the act are broad and comprehensive and apply to all contracts no matter when made, and prohibit the furnishing of service in any instance upon terms other than those set

Opinion, per MATTHIAS, J.

forth in the schedule required to be filed with the commission. The legislature might have exempted from the operation of the provisions of the act any contract executed prior to July 1, 1911, the date upon which the act as an entirety should go into effect, but it chose to exempt only such contracts as had been executed prior to the passage of the act, and to make that portion of the act effective immediately upon its passage, so that preferential contracts could not thereafter be entered into and by reason thereof exemption claimed from the requirements of the law.

This law was in existence at the time the contract in question was made, or, to put it the other way, when this law was passed the contract in question here had not been executed. This bill not having been signed by the governor became a law at the expiration of the designated period after presentation, which was June 14, 1911. It is well settled that where a time in the future is stated in an act when it shall take effect and be in force it has effect and speaks only from that time. But that rule applies only where a contrary intention is not manifested in the act itself. Here a contrary intention is expressly stated, and a valid statute should have effect in accordance with the purpose and intent of the law-making body which enacts it. The purpose of the legislative body is clear and manifest, that though the full machinery for enforcement of the provisions of the act should not be set in motion until July 1, 1911, only contracts executed prior to the passage of the act should not be construed as constituting a discrimination or

Opinion Per Curiam.

undue or unreasonable preference or advantage within the meaning of such act; and it precluded the execution of contracts subsequent to the passage of the act, which otherwise would escape the inhibitory provisions of the act and in a measure thwart its very design and purpose.

The judgment of the court of appeals affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

NICHOLS, C. J., JONES, JOHNSON, WANAMAKER and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.

THE STATE, EX REL. HALL, SUPT. OF Banks, v. DONAHEY, AUDITOR OF STate.

Constitutional law-Blue sky law-Sections 6373-1 to 6373-24, General Code-Stocks, bonds and securities — Licensing and supervision of dealers therein.

(No. 15164— Decided September 10, 1918.)

IN MANDAMUS.

Mr. Edward C. Turner, attorney general, for relator.

Mr. Henry S. Ballard, assistant attorney general, and Mr. John A. Shauck, for respondent.

It is ordered by the court that the petition in mandamus in this cause be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without record; the questions at issue

Opinion Per Curiam.

herein having been decided by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Hall, Supt. of Banks, v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U. S., 539.

Petition dismissed.

WARNER V. THE ERIE RAILROAD CO.

Court of appeals - Finding constitutes reversal on weight of evidence, when Contributory negligence-Question of fact for jury, when.

(No. 15870-Decided December 10, 1918.)

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.

Messrs. Howell, Roberts & Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Cook, McGowan, Foote, Bushnell & Lamb, for defendant in error.

This court finds from the record and the entry of the court of appeals that the judgment of that court is in effect a determination by that court that the judgment of the court of common pleas was against the weight of the evidence on the issue of contributory negligence, and this court finds from the record that it was the function of the jury to weigh the evidence on that issue as well as the other issues in the case.

It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by this court, on the authority of Stugard, Admr., v. P., C.,

Opinion Per Curiam.

C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 92 Ohio St., 318, that the judgment of the court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, modified so as to provide that the judgment of the court of common pleas be reversed on the ground that the verdict of the jury, and the judgment entered thereon, was against the weight of the evidence, and the cause is remanded to said court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment modified and cause remanded.

NICHOLS, C. J., WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, MATTHIAS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

THE STATE, EX REL. McGHEE, ATTY. GEN., V. THE MORGAN RUN RY. CO. ET AL.

Railroads-Common carriers, when-Duty to furnish service Coal and mining company cannot operate road, when — Public utilities commission — Jurisdiction.

(No. 16041-Decided December 10, 1918.)

IN MANDAMUS.

Mr. Joseph McGhee, attorney general; Mr. C. A. Radcliffe and Mr. W. S. Merrell, for relator. Messrs. Booth, Keating, Pomerene & Boulger, for respondents.

The court finds that the order of this court in cause No. 15806 [98 Ohio St., 218], upon which

« AnteriorContinuar »