Case ID: okla_25/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dunn, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. State et al.
    
    No. 875.
    Opinion Filed January 11, 1910.
    (106 Pac. 818.)
    RAILROADS «-Construction of Side Tracks — Procedure. Private persons or corporations, desiring the construction of side tracks to accomodatvi their particular industries, should proceed under section 33, art. 9, of the Constitution ('Snyder’s Const, p. 267) requiring such persons or corporations to pay the cost of such construction.
    (Sjdlabus by the Court.)
    
      Appeal from Corporation Commission.
    
    Action by the State of Oklahoma and the Snyder Ice & Storage Company against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings, error.
    Reversed.
    
      W. F. Evans and B. A. Kleinschmidt, for 'plaintiff in error:
    
      Geo. A. Henshaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error:
   Dunn, J.

This case is an appeal to this court by plaintiff in error, defendant below, from an order made by the Corporation Commission of the state requiring it to build a side track to serve the industry of the defendant in error the Snyder Ice & Storage Company, who was complainant below'. The facts, as developed at the hearing and found in the order, bring the case within the rule announced by this court in the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. State et al., 23 Okla. 94, 99 Pac. 901, and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company v. State of Oklahoma and J. B. Davis, 24 Okla. 616, 104 Pac. 908, and St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Haywood et al., ante, p. 417, 106 Pac. 862. The complainant sought relief under section 18 of article 9 of the Constitution (Snyder’s Const. p. 238), when under the facts'its remedy was provided for by section 33 of article 9 of the Constitution (Snyder’s Const. p. 267).

Eor the reason set forth in the foregoing opinions, the order of the Corporation Commission is reversed.

All the Justices concur.