Interurban Railway & Terminal Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Citations

• 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 287

Syllabus

<p>Franchises — Street and interurban railways — Municipal ordinance becomes a contract, -when — Police power — Exercise by state and subdivisions — Impairment of existing contracts — Public utilities commission — Jurisdiction — Complaint against rates — Before existing franchise expires — Constitutional law.</p> <p>1. When the terms of a valid ordinance granting a franchise to a street or interurban railway company are accepted by the grantee, such action constitutes a contract between the parties. As long as the company retains the franchise and operates its road thereunder its terms must control. (Interurban Ry. & Term. Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 93 Ohio St., 108, approved and followed.)</p> <p>2. The state cannot be deprived of its right to the proper exercise of the police power; and none of its subdivisions can bind itself by contracts which are or which may become deleterious to the peace, order, health or morals of the people.</p> <p>3. A contract concerning proprietary rights, and harmless in itself, made by a municipality in the exercise of power clearly conferred, is protected by the constitution, and the police power cannot be invoked to abrogate or impair it.</p> <p>4. The statutes of Ohio which create the public utilities commission and define its powers do not confer authority on the commission to change rates fixed by the terms of valid contracts made by a public utility with a municipality in the exercise of powers clearly conferred upon it.</p>