Opinion

Queen City Telephone Co. v. Cincinnati

  • 17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 385
  • 5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 411
Court
Ohio Circuit Courts
Filed
Jan 15, 1905
Status
Published
Author
Jelke
On the bench
Giffen, Jelke, Swing
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

JELKE, J.

I concur in the conclusion reached by Swing, J., especially in his construction and application of Lan. R. L. 5587 (R. S. 3461).

While the question of the constitutionality of this section is not open to us, having been determined by the Supreme Court to be constitutional, I am of opinion the action of the probate court herein was an unconstitutional construction and application of that law.

The decree of the probate court was pure municipal legislation, and no act to the legislature can make an act legislative in its very essence, judicial in nature, and no construction or application of a constitutional *407 law should be made or can constitutionally be made which would work out that effect.

I dissent from that part of the opinion which limits the combined application of Lan. R. L. 5574, 5602 (R. S. 3454, 3471-1) to overhead construction and companies now in existence and having and operating a switch board or exchange, as such construction would be contrary to the constitution as tending to create a monopoly.

I further concur in the conclusion that the Queen City Telephone Company was not properly organized to apply for or to receive a grant.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.