
    Phelps, on behalf of the City of Findlay, v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Co. et al.
    
      Public Utilities Commission — Review of proceedings — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court exclusive — Section 5Jfi, General Code —Specific performance and injunction.
    
    (No. 18434
    Decided June 21, 1924.)
    Error to the Court .of Appeals of Hancock county.
    This is a proceeding in error to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Hancock county. The original action was a proceeding in equity whereby the plaintiff in error sought to require the defendant in error, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, to specifically perform a certain contract with reference to the schedule of rates charged for its public service; that it be enjoined from charging, exacting, imposing, or collecting from its patrons, residents of the city of Findlay, any rate in excess of that fixed in the contract of 1914, so long as it continued to exercise the right by said contract conferred upon it, or until it shall have concluded a. new contract as to rates with said city.
    An amendment to the petition was filed setting up a certain franchise and contract between the Findlay Home Telephone Company and the city of Findlay, entered into under date of July 2, 1900, whereby rates were fixed, which franchise-ordinance contained a clause providing for the privilege of constructing and maintaining underground conduits in the streets of such city; and said amendment to the petition avers that these rights have been transferred to the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, which is at present enjoying and using the same. The prayer of the amended petition is that the Ohio Bell Telephone Company perform its duty under the ordinance of 1914, as stated in the petition, or that the contract of the Home Company, executed in 1900, he complied with in good faith, or a new contract for such service he negotiated with the council of the defendant city. A second amendment to the petition was filed, which goes to the question of the American. Telephone & Telegraph Company acquiring the stock of the Ohio Bell Telephone Company and dominating the same, resulting in unreasonable and excessive rates. To these pleadings a demurrer was filed by the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, which demurrer was sustained by the common pleas court, and the same was affirmed upon error in the Court of Appeals.
    
      Mr. George H. Phelps, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Mr. K<arl E. Burr; Messrs. Burket & Burket, and Mr. W. S. Snook, city solicitor, for defendants in error.
   By the Court.

An examination of the pleadings filed in this case discloses that the same relate to rates to be charged for telephone service in the city of Findlay. The case was submitted to be considered at the same time as case No. 18121, City of Findlay v. Public Utilities Commission, post, 827.

The petition herein was filed June 15, 1923, and three days before, on June 12, 1923, and in said cause No. 18121, City of Findlay v. Public Utilities Commission, all questions touching the rates for telephone service, rights under ordinances and franchises, were adjudicated by the Public Utilities Commission.

Section 549, General Code, provides as follows:

“No court other than the 'Supreme Court shall have power to review, suspend or delay any order made by the Commission, or enjoin, restrain or interfere with the Commission or any member thereof in the performance of official duties. Nor shall the writ of mandamus be issued against the Commission or any member thereof by any court other than the Supreme Court.”

In considering this section of the Code, the Supreme Court, in Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 100 Ohio St., 321, 327, 126 N. E., 397, 399, says:

“We are confirmed in our view as to the statutory provision and extent of our duty by the provisions of Section 549, General Code, which provides that no court other than the Supreme Court shall have power to review, suspend or delay any order made by the Commission, or enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the Commission, or any member thereof, in the performance of official duties, nor shall the writ of mandamus be issued against the Commission or any member thereof by any court other than the Supreme Court.
“Here are comprehensive provisions touching the subject. By this and the preceding sections full and exclusive jurisdiction in review is conferred upon this court.”

Being of opinion that the right to maintain this action conflicts with Section 549, General Code, and cognate sections, we hold that the courts below were right in sustaining the demurrer to the petition. It follows that their judgment in so doing must be, and is hereby, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, O. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Dav, and Allen, JJ., concur. •  