Opinion Per Curiam. Coss V. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO. Public utilities commission — Jurisdiction - Electric power ratesOral contract superseded by schedule rates, when-No discrimination, when. (No. 16480-Decided June 22, 1920.) ERROR to the Public Utilities Commission. Messrs. McBride & Wolfe, for plaintiff in error. Mr. John G. Price, attorney general; Mr. E. E. Corn and Mr. C. H. Henkel, for defendant in error. It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the order of the said public utilities commission of Ohio be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. There was no error in dismissing the complaint filed with the public utilities commission wherein the complainant sought an order of the public utilities commission requiring the Richland Public Service Company to furnish current for an electric fan at a flat rate claimed to have been agreed upon in 1908 by the predecessor of said company or an order requiring said company to do certain wiring claimed to have been made necessary by reason of changing from a flat rate to a meter rate for services, or to compensate complainant for damages for failure to keep its contract. The record discloses that the defendant company proceeded in accordance with its approved schedule of rates on file with the commission without any discrimination, and that the order which the complainant seeks would require Opinion Per Curiam. a discrimination in favor of the complainant contrary to the express provisions of the utility act. If the complaint stated a valid contract with the defendant itself the public utilities commission would be entirely wanting in jurisdiction to either enforce specific performance thereof or award damages incurred by reason of its violation by the company. Order affirmed. NICHOLS, C. J., JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON, ROBINSON and MERRELL, JJ., concur. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF GREENE COUNTY V. HARSHMAN. Error proceedings -- Supreme court-Final order by court of appeals Contempt proceedings. (No. 16490-Decided June 22, 1920.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Greene county. Mr. Harry D. Smith, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. M. J. Hartley, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Marcus Shoup, for defendant in error. The court find that no final order has been made or entered by the court of appeals from which the plaintiff in error can prosecute this proceeding in error. The cause was heard in the court of appeals upon an information or complaint in con Opinion Per Curiam. tempt against the board of county commissioners for failure and refusal to comply with a former decree of said court of appeals which was rendered March 23, 1918, as a result whereof the court of appeals modified and reaffirmed such former order and decree and required that it be complied with by the date therein designated. If this proceeding in error is from the order and decree of March 23, 1918, it comes too late; if it is from the order and decree of December 17, 1919, it is premature, for as yet there has been no judgment of contempt by that court for refusal of the commissioners to obey and execute the order and decree previously made and entered by the court of appeals. It is therefore ordered that the petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Petition in error dismissed. NICHOLS, C. J., JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON, WANAMAKER, ROBINSON and MERRELL, JJ., con cur. Opinion Per Curiam. COULTER V. CHANEY, EXR., ET AL. Supreme court — Judgment reversed by consent. (No. 16548- Decided June 22, 1920.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Coshocton county. Mr. C. R. Bell and Mr. T. H. Wheeler, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Merrell, Shepler & Burklew, for defendants in error. By and with the consent of all parties to the record the court finds that there is error apparent upon the record in the proceedings of said court of appeals to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error. It is, therefore, by and with the consent of all parties to the record, considered by this court that the judgment rendered by the said court of appeals be reversed and held for naught, and that the judgment of the court of common pleas, which was reversed by the said court of appeals, be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. Judgment of the court of appeals reversed and that of common pleas affirmed by consent. Opinion Per Curiam. THE STATE, EX REL. GRACE, v. HOWARD, TREAS URER. Schools-Creation of new district by county board - Remonstrance – Section 4736, General Code. (No. 16685-Decided June 22, 1920.) IN MANDAMUS. Messrs. Marshall & Fraser, for relator. It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the demurrer to the petition be sustained, the court being of the opinion that the phrase "territory affected" used in Section 4736, General Code, applies to the territory of the old school district, embracing both the newly created district and the territory outside thereof. And plaintiff not desiring to further plead, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the petition of the plaintiff be dismissed. Demurrer sustained. Petition dismissed. NICHOLS, C. J., JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON, WANAMAKER, ROBINSON and MERRELL, JJ., concur. |