Court Opinion

ID: 9559763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:35:21.125151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:41.911931
License: Public Domain

WELCH, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur herein, but only because this decision is predicated and based upon the rule adopted and applied by the majority of this court in three former cases: (1) St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. State, 204 Okl. 432, 230 P.2d 709; (2) Same parties, Okl., 262 P.2d 168, and (3) Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. State, Old., 266 P.2d 642.
I am in fundamental disagreement with the .rule as adopted and applied in all these cases, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the first case above cited. But so long as that rule exists and is preserved it is binding on all and should be applied to all alike. There is no fundamental difference between this case and the other three.
It is- quite important that we have even, unvaried and equal administration -of justice, equitable and fair to all parties. We should overrule the controlling rule of these three former decisions, or until we do- so we should apply it fairly to all cases where the facts are substantially the same. There is no substantial difference here as to the character of the line, the character of service, or as to the public demand for, and public use of, the service. If the rule is sound that the “Frisco” and the “Katy” have the right to, and may, discontinue the passenger service involved in- those three former cases, then the “K. O. & G.” in fairness must be.given the same right here.