Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. State

1921 OK 296, 200 P. 232, 82 Okla. 288, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 273
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 26, 1921
Docket12072
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1921 OK 296 (Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 1921 OK 296, 200 P. 232, 82 Okla. 288, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 273 (Okla. 1921).

Opinion

MILLER, J.

A complaint was filed by the Standard Paper Company and J. T. Lantry against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Chas. E. Schaff, receiver of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, Midland Valley Railway Company, and St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, before the Corporation Commission asking that the Corporation Commission adjust and fix a rate to be charged by the defendant railway companies on gravel, crushed rock, cement, .sand, and other road building materials to such a base as will not be prohibitive. The adjustment of rates asked for is to govern in the vicinity of Tulsa. A hearing was had before the Corporation Commission. It adjusted and fixed the rate on a basis of the length of the haul. The railway companies have joined in an appeal to this court from the ruling of the Corporation Commission, and appear here as appellants.

The railway companies make six assignments of error, as follows: ■

“1. The Corporation Commission of Oklahoma was without jurisdiction or authority to enter and promulgate said order No. 1855.
“2. The Corporation Commission erred in entering and promulgating order No. 1855.
“3. Said order No. 1855 of the Corporation Commission is unreasonable and unjust.
“4. >Said order No. 1855 of the Corporation Commission is not based upon sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.
“5. Said order No. 1855 of the Corporation Commission is confiscatory and will result in depriving appellants and each of thorn, of their property without due process of law, and without due compensation, contrary t.o the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
“6. Said order No. 1855 of the Corporation Commission fixes rates which are unduly low and discriminatory, and require thése appellants to afford service to one locality and to certain shippers at materially lower rates than are prescribed for similar service to other localities, and to other shippers of the same commodities over the same route and distances in that locality.”

Then they say:

“The various assignments of error above numbered miay, for convenience, be considered together.”

On the hearing before the Corporation Commission a number of witnesses testified, and a large amount of documentary evidence was offered in the form of rate schedules in force in different states. After considering this evidence the Corporation Commission made its findings of fact. It then promulgated its order No. 1855, which, omitting the caption, is as follows:

“This case being at issue upon complaint and answers on file, and having been duly heard and subjected by the parties and full investigation of the matters and things involved having been had, and the commission having on the date hereof made and filed a report containing its findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which said report is above referred to and made a part hereof:
“It is ordered, that the above named defendants according as they may participate in the transportation, be and they are hereby notified and required to cease and desist, on or before February 16th, 1912, and thereafter to abstain, from publishing, demanding, or collecting for the transportation of sand, gravel and crushed stone in carload lots, rates that exceed the rates for dis-mojj oiqu; Suiaotcoj eqi ut pa;i30tpui seoroi points of origin within that radius to Tulsa and West Tulsa, for street paving and any point of origin or destination within that radius in Tulsa county, for road-building purposes for single line movements, and that one (1) cent be added to the single line rate for a two (2) line movement:
10 Miles and Under 2c per 100 lbs.
20 " " Over 10 2%c per ” "
30 ” " ’’ 20 3c
“It is also ordered, that distances now published in Oklahoma Mileage Table No. 1-B Supplements thereto or re-issues thereof be used in applying such charges.
“It is Further Ordered that the rates above designated shall be published on or before the 16th day of February, 1921, upon notice to this commission and to the general public by not less than one (1) day, and that they shall continue in effect for the period of one year from the effective date of this order, unless sooner changed or canceled by this commission.
*290 “Done at Oklahoma City this the 5th day of February, 1921.
“Corporation Commission of Oklahoma.
“.(Signed) Campbell Russell, Chairman.”
“E. R. Hughes, Commissioner. Art • L. Walker, Commissioner.
“Attest:
“P. E. Glenn, Act. Secy.”

The only thing that is necessary for this court to determine is the reasonableness and justness of the action of the commission .appealed from. The rate fixed by the Corporation Commission for the purpose of this appeal shall be regarded as prima facie just, reasonable, and correct; if in the opinion of the court the evidence taken before the Corporation Commission and' certified to the court overcomes- this prima facie presumption, it is then the duty of this court to- make such order or fix such rate as it deems just, reasonable, and correct. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. State, 81 Okla. 298, 198 Pac. 73.

There are many things urged by the appellants: That the rate is an unjust discrimination in favor of a certain class of shippers; that it is an unjust discrimination in favor of certain localities, to wit, Tulsa; that by a comparison of rates it is unjust. The appellants also claim that the rate was made for the purpose of relieving the complainants from loss they claimed they would sustain by reason of certain contracts they had already made. We think the order of the Corporation Commission should be modified, and the modification we will make will dispose of all of these contentions.

The findings of fact of the Corporation Commission are in part as follows:

“The evidence introduced by the complainants show that the present rates on sand and gravel for short hauls are unreasonable and unjust, considering all matters and thing's involved. At the opening of the hearing the applicants dismissed the case in so far as the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad was concerned, as it was not the purpose to bring in issue the rates as applied on cement from Hartshorne, Oklahoma, to points in Oklahoma.
“The evidence further shows that on or about May 22, 1919, the complainants and other contractors in Tulsa, Oklahoma, contracted to pave some of the country roads in Tulsa county, Oklahoma. These contracts were all made after the Director General issued circular No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co. v. State
1952 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State
1937 OK 461 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. State
1927 OK 283 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Atchison, T. &. S. F. Ry. Co. v. State
1925 OK 799 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Standard Paving Co.
1924 OK 307 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1921 OK 296, 200 P. 232, 82 Okla. 288, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atchison-t-s-f-r-co-v-state-okla-1921.