Mo., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. State

Decision Date14 November 1911
Docket NumberCase Number: 1274
Citation29 Okla. 640,119 P. 117,1911 OK 411
PartiesMISSOURI, O. & G. RY. CO. v. STATE.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. RAILROADS---Regulation by Corporation Commission--Statutory Provisions. The act of May 20, 1908 (Laws 1908, c. 18), does not extend the jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission beyond the metes and bounds fixed by article 9, sec. 18, of the Constitution, nor alter, amend, revise, or appeal sections of the Constitution from 18 to 34, inclusive, but is auxiliary and supplemental to said section 18, and provides a remedy for the enforcement and protection of certain rights thereby secured, and by legislative construction defines those rights so that their exact limits may be known.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- Construction -- Legislative Construction -- "Public Facilities" -- "Public Conveniences" -- Union Depots. A clause in the Constitution and act passed by the first Legislature after the adoption of the Constitution, relating to the same subject, like statutes in pari materia, are to be construed together. And where such act impliedly construes "public facilities" or "public conveniences," as used in article 9, section 18, to include a union passenger depot, such contemporary interpretation is entitled to great weight, and in this instance, being correct, will not be disturbed.

3. RAILROADS--Regulation--Compulsory Union Depots. The act of May 20, 1908 (Laws 1908, c. 18), requiring every railroad company operating a railroad in this state to make such physical connections, transfer, and switching facilities at certain points as may be ordered by the Corporation Commission, and empowering said commission, on complaint or on its own motion, to require such companies to make such physical connections and establish and maintain union depots, etc., as the public interest may require, is a valid exercise of legislative power. And where it appears that appellant was incorporated under the laws of this state, and thus acquired its right of way and station grounds at D., that the effect of the order would be to compel it to fail to comply with the conditions attached to a bonus of $ 10,000 to be used in the construction of a depot upon said grounds and abandon its right of way, and, in order to extend its tracks to the union depot ordered operated at D., to deflect its main line of road and run through two elevators, grade an additional roadbed, and curve its track so acutely as to cause delay in handling its trains, all at a cost of about $ 50,000, held, notwithstanding, that the act and the proceedings thereunder are valid either as a proper exercise of the police power of the state or as a reasonable exercise of the right reserved to the Legislature to amend, alter, or repeal the charter of appellant.

4. STATUTES--Implied Powers. Where a power is given by statute, there is carried with it power to do everything reasonably necessary to make it effective.

Appeal from the Corporation Commission.

Proceedings by the State against the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Company and others to compel operation of a joint depot. From an order of the Corporation Commission, requiring such a depot, the mentioned defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Alexander New, E. R. Jones, and Arthur Miller, for appellant

Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State

TURNER, C. J.

¶1 At the conclusion of the testimony taken on the hearing of the petition of several residents of Durant, a city of 5,300 inhabitants, theretofore filed before it, wherein they complain of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, and the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Company, defendants, the Corporation Commission on August 10, 1910, found:

"It is shown from the evidence that the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway and the Arkansas & Choctaw branch of the Frisco intersect at the town of Durant, and that said railway companies maintain a joint depot; that the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf has secured right of way through the town of Durant; that said right of way crosses the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway in the north part of the town and parallels the said railway from said crossing to the Arkansas & Choctaw branch of the Frisco, 470 feet east of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas and Frisco crossing; that the proposed site of the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf depot is south and east of the main street in the town of Durant and 400 feet east of the north end of the joint depot used by the Missouri, Kansas & Texas and Frisco; that the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway has a double track through the town of Durant; that east of said track it has a switch track and also a merchandise track east of the main line, leading to grain elevators; that there is a great deal of switching done on those tracks by the Missouri, Kansas & Texas; that passengers arriving over the Missouri, Kansas & Texas and Frisco, desiring to take a Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf train, would have to cross these two tracks in order to get to the proposed site of the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf depot, thereby incurring additional expense in transferring baggage, and making it very inconvenient and dangerous for the traveling public in crossing from one depot to another. It is further shown that the present depot of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway and Frisco Railroad is very convenient to the business part of the town, being located one block off the main street; that this depot is equipped with ample facilities to take care of the business of the three roads in the town of Durant at the present time; that a union depot can be maintained at much less expense to the railroads than separate depots. It appears from the testimony of the engineer of the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway that it would be very expensive for said railway to secure right of way and run a track to connect with the joint depot of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas and Frisco; that the Missouri, Kansas & Texas and Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf are competitive roads, and that the passenger traffic would be greatly decreased over the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf owing to the fact that the agent would be employed by the Missouri, Kansas & Texas and would invariably send passengers over the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, instead of sending them over the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf. After a thorough investigation and careful consideration of the evidence, the commission is of the opinion that the greater number of citizens of Durant and the traveling public would be better accommodated by the maintenance of a union passenger depot than by separate depots in the town of Durant; that it would be dangerous for passengers transferring from one depot to another; and that the proper safety and accommodations of the traveling public and the people of the town of Durant require a passenger depot used jointly by the Frisco, Missouri, Kansas & Texas, and Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railways in the said town."

¶2 --And ordered:

"* * * That the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, and the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway operate a joint passenger depot in the town of Durant at the present site of the depot used by the St. Louis & San Francisco and Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Companies in said town, suitable for the accommodation of the passenger traffic into and out of said town, and that said depot shall be used jointly by said companies on and after the 1st day of December, 1909, and maintained for such joint use until further orders of this commission."

¶3 From which said order the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Company alone appeals.

¶4 Assailing the order, appellant contends: That the commission was without jurisdiction to make it, because the same was based on the act of May 20, 1908, which, it is urged, extends that jurisdiction beyond the metes and bounds fixed by article 9, § 18, Const., which reads:

"The commission shall have the power and authority and be charged with the duty of supervising, regulating, and controlling all transportation and transmission companies doing business in this state, in all matters relating to the performance of their public duties and their charges therefor, and of correcting abuses and preventing unjust discrimination and extortion by such companies; and to that end the commission shall, from time to time, prescribe and enforce against such companies, in the manner hereinafter authorized, such rates, charges, classifications of traffic, and rules and regulations, and shall require them to establish and maintain all such public service facilities, and conveniences as may be reasonable and just. * * *"

¶5 --And which said act, having been passed prior to the time fixed in section 35 of the same article, which reads:

"After the second Monday in January, nineteen hundred and nine, the Legislature may, by law, from time to time, alter, amend, revise, or repeal sections from eighteen to thirty-four inclusive, of this article, or any of them, or any amendments thereof: Provided, that no amendment made under authority of this section shall contravene the provisions of any part of this Constitution other than the said sections last above referred to or any such amendments thereof."

¶6 --is unconstitutional and void, and for that reason the order must fall.

¶7 On the other hand, it is contended, in effect, that said act neither altered, amended, revised, nor repealed sections from 18 to 34, inclusive, but is ancillary and supplementary to said section 18 and provides a remedy for the enforcement and protection of certain rights thereby secured, and by legislative construction in a measure defines those rights so that their exact limits might be known. This latter contention is correct. Whether that part of said section authorizing the commission to require all transportation companies doing business in the state to establish and maintain all such public...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Murray v. Public Utilities Commission
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1915
    ... ... entire value of a company for rate-making purposes? It is ... impossible to conceive that the framers of our state ... constitution in using the term "public use" would ... have so used it as to preclude the idea of the party who had ... acquired a right to ... ...
  • Tex. Co. v. State ex rel. Coryell
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1947
    ...is reflected in the following cases: Coyle v. Smith, 28 Okla. 121, 113 P. 944 (aff. 221 U.S. 559, 55 L.Ed. 853); Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. State, 29 Okla. 640, 119 P. 117; Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 174, 71 L.Ed. 160. This court recognized legality of corporate ownership of rea......
  • Lowther v. Nissley
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 29 Julio 1913
    ...the same effect, Incorporated Town of Westville v. Incorporated Town of Stillwell et al., 24 Okla. 892, 105 P. 664; M., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. State, 29 Okla. 640, 119 P. 117; McKee et al. v. de Graffenreid et al., 33 Okla. 136, 124 P. 303; Ex parte McNaught, 23 Okla. 285, 100 P. 27; State ex r......
  • Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 15 Mayo 1923
    ...& T. Ry. Co. v. State, 24 Okla. 331, 103 P. 613; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Sutton et al., 29 Okla. 553, 119 P. 423; M., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. State, 29 Okla. 640, 119 P. 117; K. C. S. Ry. Co. v. Redwine, 43 Okla. 610, 143 P. 847; M., O. & G. Ry. Co v. State, 53 Okla. 341, 156 P. 1155; Tulsa St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT