St. Louis & S.F. R. Co. v. Cross

Decision Date04 June 1909
Docket Number278
Citation171 F. 480
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
PartiesST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. v. CROSS, Secretary of State of Oklahoma, et al.

The amended bill contains allegations, as follows:

That the complainant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Missouri and a citizen of that state, and that the defendants are citizens of the Western district of the state of Oklahoma. That the matters in dispute exceed $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and that the cause arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. That the complainant has for several years owned and operated, and now owns and operates, a system of railroad as a common carrier of freight, passengers, and mail between, in, and through, the states of Missouri, Kansas Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. That the portion of said railway system in Oklahoma is composed of 16 lines of railway, of the aggregate length of 1500 miles which were constructed between certain named termini by other railroad companies, under and by the authority of and in compliance with certain designated acts of Congress and the statutes of Oklahoma Territory (some of the lines being located in both Oklahoma and Indian Territories and others in each of them), and thereafter with all of their property franchises, etc., acquired by the complainant by deeds of conveyances (2 of them being made by purchasers at foreclosure sales, 12 by the original companies, and 2 by intermediate grantees, in one instance a lease being made) all prior to the admission of the state, and at ali times since so acquired forming a part of a continuous and connecting line of interstate railway, on which since completion and acquirement by complainant it has been carrying interstate and intrastate commerce and the mail. That by the laws of Congress and the territory of Oklahoma and said conveyances, valid contracts were made whereby the complainant acquired the right to operate and maintain said railroads. That the laws of Congress and the territory of Oklahoma invited the investment of capital in railroad enterprises, and that pursuant to the invitations, offers, and conditions contained in such laws, the complainant has invested many millions of dollars in these railroads; its property being assessed for the current year at $47,266,311. That by virtue of such laws and the investments thereunder, the complainant has acquired the right by contract to continue to own, maintain, operate, and enjoy such railroads and possess and enjoy the rights of a common carrier of interstate and intrastate commerce as well as all the rights, privileges, and franchises of corporations organized under the laws of the territory of Oklahoma. That, not being so required, complainant has not procured a license from the territory or state of Oklahoma to transact business in the state, but has carried on its business as such common carrier in the state under the authority of the laws in force at the time of the organization of the state (on November 16, 1907) and the Constitution of the state, so far as applicable.

That in a civil action instituted against it in the district court of Comanche county, in this state, for the recovery of damages sustained prior to the admission of the state, the complainant filed a petition with bond, for the removal of the action to the Circuit Court for this district, and that the presiding judge of the state court certified the fact to the Secretary of State, whereupon the defendant Leo Meyer, Acting Secretary of State, after this suit was begun in this court, signed an instrument as follows:

'State of Oklahoma.
'Revocation of Charter of St. Louis & San Francisco

Railroad Company in Oklahoma.

'Guthrie, Oklahoma, August 29, 1908.

'Petition for removal and to the Circuit Court of the United States.

'Gertrude Goode, Administratrix of the estate of Frank R. Goode, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, a Corporation, Defendant.

'State of Oklahoma, Comanche County, in the District Court.

'Having received due and legal notice from J. T. Johnson, judge of the district court of Comanche county, that the above-named corporation defendant, St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, has filed a petition for removal to the United States court, a certified copy of which is on record in the office of the Secretary of State at the Capitol in the city of Guthrie in the state of Oklahoma: Therefore I, Leo Meyer, Assistant Secretary of State and now Acting Secretary of State of the state of Oklahoma, by authority invested in me under section four of House Bill No. 131 approved by the Governor of the state of Oklahoma, C. N. Haskell, May 26, 1908, do hereby declare the license of the said St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to transact business in the state of Oklahoma forfeited and revoked.

'In testimony whereof, I have set my hand and cause to be affixed the great seal of the state.

'Done at the city of Guthrie this twenty-ninth day of August, A.D. 1908.

'Leo Meyer, Acting Secretary of State. (Seal.)'

That the defendants have by said instrument attempted to declare the charter and authority of complainant to do business within the state of Oklahoma to be revoked and forfeited, and since the date of the instrument have been and are threatening and attempting to deprive it of the right to do business in the state under and by virtue of the legislative act of the state, approved May 26, 1908, and that the effect of that instrument, unless declared void, and the proposed action of the defendants in attempting to enforce the provisions of the act will be to subject complainant to numerous prosecutions and annoying litigation, and make possible the assessment by various courts of the state of fines, ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, for each day or part thereof during which complainant transacts business in the state. That the complainant is without remedy at law, and that the injury and damage to result from the enforcement of the act are irreparable.

The complainant then asserts that the legislative act of the state is void for conflict with the Constitution of the United States on several specified grounds and with the Constitution of the state, and prays a decree enjoining the defendants from forfeiting or revoking, or declaring forfeited or revoked, or attempting to forfeit or revoke, its authority or charter to carry on its business as a common carrier in the state, declaring the legislative act void and ineffective as to complainant and the instrument signed and issued by the defendant Leo Meyer, Acting Secretary of State, null and void and inoperative as to the right of complainant to carry on such business in the state.

The legislative act of the state (Laws 1908, p. 214, c. 16) complained of is as follows:

'An act fixing the domicile of persons, firms and corporations transacting business within the state of Oklahoma; providing for forfeiture and revocation of license to transact business in the state upon the filing in any court of record, claim or declaration of domicile in another state or foreign country; the duty of judges relative thereto; and providing penalty for transacting business after revocation of license.
'Be it enacted by the people of the state of Oklahoma:
'Section 1. That the domicile of every person, firm or corporation conducting a business in person, by agent, through an office, or otherwise transacting business within the state of Oklahoma, and which has complied with or may comply with the Constitution and laws of the state of Oklahoma, shall be for all purposes deemed and held to be the state of Oklahoma.
'Sec. 2. That the license or charter to do business within the state of Oklahoma of every person, firm or corporation conducting a business in person, by agent, through an office or otherwise transacting business within said state of Oklahoma, who shall claim or declare in writing before any court of law or equity within said state of Oklahoma, domicile

within another state or foreign country, shall, upon such declaration be immediately revoked.

'Sec. 3. That it shall be the duty of the judge of any court in which any declaration or claim of domicile within another state or foreign country, is filed, to report to the Secretary of State and to furnish said Secretary of State with an authenticated copy of any claim or declaration in writing made or filed, declaring domicile within another state or foreign country.

'Sec. 4. That the Secretary of State immediately upon the receipt of the copy of the claim or declaration of any person, firm or corporation as aforesaid, shall declare the license or charter of any person, firm or corporation so filing said claim or declaration, forfeited and revoked.

'Sec. 5. That any person, firm or corporation conducting a business in person, by agent, through an office, or otherwise transacting business within the state of Oklahoma, whose license to do business within said state of Oklahoma shall have been revoked as aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each day or part thereof they shall so conduct a business after the revocation of their license to do business within this state as aforesaid.

'Sec. 6. Nothing in this act shall be construed to allow any corporation organized under the law of any other state, territory or foreign country to exercise the right of eminent domain in the state of Oklahoma.

'Sec 7. An emergency is hereby declared to exist, whereby the immediate passage of this act is declared necessary for the preservation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In Re Seven Barrels of Wine, in Re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 14, 1920
    ...... law. See McCarthy v. Havis, supra; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Cross (C. C.) 171 F. 480; Graves v. Dunlap, 87 Wash. 648, 152 P. 532, L. R. ......
  • Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., s. 41535
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 21, 1973
    ...validity of the statute, or when it would make its application conflict with organic law. See McCarthy v. Havis, supra; St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Cross (C.C.) 171 F. 480; Graves v. Dunlap, 87 Wash. 648, 152 P. 532, L.R.A.1916C, 338, Ann.Cas.1917B, 'A statute should not be so construed or ap......
  • Coca-Cola Co. v. Stevenson
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Southern District of Illinois
    • January 1, 1920
    ...... (D.C.) 209 F. 465; Same v. Greene, 244 U.S. 555, 37 Sup.Ct. 697, 61 L.Ed. 1309; St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Cross (C.C.) 171 F. 480; Harrison v. St. L. &. S.F. Ry. Co., 232 U.S. 318, 34 ......
  • Wise v. Chandler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • October 1, 1937
    ...under Civil Code of Practice, sec. 639a — 1 et seq. McHugh v. Louisville Bridge Co., 65 S.W. 456, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1546; St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Cross, 171 F. 480; 32 C.J. In 32 C.J. 24, the text, supported by numerous authorities, says: "Where defendant has fully completed the act sought ......
  • 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