The Lorain Transit Lines, Inc., filed with the Public Utilities Commission an application *402 (No. 9044) for a certificate of public convеnience and necessity to carry passengers ovеr a regular route between tbe cities of Lorain and Elyria.
Thereafter The Lorain Motor Coach Company, Inс., filed an application (No. 9061) for a similar certificate over the identical route.
The -route over which both applicants sought a certificate has been served by The Lorain Street Railroad Company for which corporation F. W. Coen was appointed receivеr by the U. S. District Court at Cleveland. Acting pursuant to authority confеrred by that court the receiver organized The Lorain Transit Lines, Inc., for the purpose of applying for a certificate.
At the hearing before an attorney-examinеr of the Public Utilities Commission each applicant was а protestan! to granting the application of the other and by agreement it was stipulated that, as far as aрplicable, the testimony offered by one applicant should be considered as protesting testimony against the other in both proceedings before the commission-invоlving this territory.
The commission denied the application of-The Lorain Motor Coach Company, Inc., (No. 9061) and denied an application for rehearing. An appeаl from that order was prosecuted to this court by the motor coach company.
The commission granted the аpplication of The Lorain Transit Lines, Inc., (No. 9044) for a сertificate and no application for reheаring was filed.
The appellant challenges the right of the receiver of The Lorain Street Railroad Company to organize The Lorain Transit Lines, Inc., the successful applicant for a certificate. That question was decided by this court in Buckeye Stages, Inc., v. Public Utilities Commission, ante, 395, this day decided.
The appellant also contends that the commission erred in granting” the certificate without proof thаt existing transportation service is inadequate and with
*403
out giving to an existing operator an opportunity to provide adequate service. See Section 614-87, General Cоde, and
Coney Island Motor Bus Co.
v.
Public Utilities Commission,
That is still the law which may he invoked hy a common carrier operating over a route, hut neither that section nor that case can be invoked in this proceeding in which both applicant and protestant are not operating over the route sought but are original applicants for a certificate.
This controversy, thereforе, narrows' down to the simple question of the reasonablеness and lawfulness of the action of the commission in granting a certificate to one of two applicants.
This court has consistently affirmed orders of the • commission, selеcting between applicants’-for a certificatе, when it does not affirmatively appear from the record that the orders are unlawful and unreasonable.
Royal Green Coach Co.
v.
Public Utilities Commission,
Order affirmed.