Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wolverton

1918 OK 143, 171 P. 722, 68 Okla. 60, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 290
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 12, 1918
Docket7611
StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK 143 (Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wolverton) 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. Ry. Co. v. Wolverton, 1918 OK 143, 171 P. 722, 68 Okla. 60, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 290 (Okla. 1918).

Opinion

KANE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission, requiring appellant to move its depot from its present location at the town of Red Rock, and to build and maintain a new depot and shipping facilities at a proposed new location, using in the new structure such materials as in the old depot and platforms as may be valuable. The proceeding in which the order complained of was issued was instituted by a number of the citizens of the town of Red Rock, their complaint alleging in substance that Red Rock is a town of about 600 inhabitants; that the station, as now located, is almost one-half mile from the principal street of the town; that the present location of the depot is down in a bottom, where Red Rock creek overflows the land on the west side, where people have to cross to get to the depot, making it' muddy the greater part of the time in wei weather, and sometimes working a hardship on every one; that the site selected for a new depot is situated near the principal street of the town, is high and dry, and an ideal place for a depot; that as the station is now located the inhabitants of the town cannot build a sidewalk to the depot, for the reason that there are two Indian allotments and a section line between the town and the depot.

The grounds urged by the appellant in •opposition to the removal of the station to the site selected may be briefly stated as follows: (1) That at the proposed location required by the order the depot and yards of appellant company must be placed in a cut from 8 to 10 feet deep; (2) that in order to re-establish at said location its yards, passing and industry tracks, a very large hole a short distance south of the location must be filled by the company; (8) practically all the company’s facilities at the present location of its depot must be removed to the new location, at a total cost of exceeding $24,000, after allowing credit for the use of all the available material in the company’s facilities at its present location; (4) that, if the depot is established in the new location upon the expenditure of the foregoing amount, it will be upon a dangerous grade of six-tenths per cent, as against a practicable grade of three-tenths per cent, at its present location; (5) that all of the heavy freight traffic, which comes to the company at this depot, must reach it by coming down an embankment into this 10-foot cut at the new location, and, in being hauled out, must be carried over this elevation ; (6) that the drainage into this cut and upon the depot grounds must be taken care of, and can be done only at expense to the company; (7) after all the expenditures have been made which this order will require, the operation of the company’s trains at the new location, because of the steeper grade and because of the location of its facilities and yards in a deep cut, cannot be conducted with the safety and general convenience with which they can be and are carried on at the present location; and (8) 90 per cent, of the patronage of the company at this depot are inconvenienced and not as adequately served by the appellant as at its present location.

The appellant introduced evidence reasonably tending to support these objections, and no evidence was offered in opposition thereto. The commission found generally that the allegations of complainants’ complaint were established, and further found that, “from viewing the grounds and general knowledge of the cost ofl way and structures,” the estimate of the appellant as to the cost of removing the station was about twice the actual cost, unless it was its intention to make an allowance of something like $10,000 for a depot building. Thereupon, without making any findings as to the existence or non-existence of the groimds urged by the appellant against the removal of the station, the commission entered its order requiring such removal, conditioned upon the citizens of the town of Red Rock acquiring and furnishing to the appellant title to a strip of land sufficient for a station site, and further condi *62 tioned that saiil citizens acquire and open up as a public highway the land necessary i'or the extension of Main and Fourth streets, from the east limits of the town to the intersection with the west line of additional right of way to be acquired.

The first assignment of error argued by counsel for appellant in their brief is to the effect that the finding of the commission ■that the estimate of the appellant as .to the probable cost of removal was about twice what it would actually cost is entirely unsupported by the evidence. AVe are unable to find any evidence in the record supporting this finding. Indeed, the finding does not purport, to be based upon evidence given by witnesses whose testimony we can weigh on appeal, but purports to be based merely upon a view of the grounds by one or more of the commissioners and their general knowledge of 'the probable cost of such work. In St. L. & |S. F. R. Co. v. Sutton et al., 29 Okla. 553, 119 Pac. 423, it was held:

“Neither the commission nor the court, as a matter of law, takes notice of such matters.”

In these circumstances, there being no evidence in the record on this point, except that of the witnesses for the appellant, we must rely upon ithe evidence given under oath, and not upon the estimate of the commission, based upon a view of the grounds and general knowledge, the extent of which we have no means of determining. Taking this as a basis for reviewing .the record before us, we find the uncontradicted evidence establishes substantially the following state of facts:

The station at Bed Rook, which was built several years prior to the location of the present town of Red Rock, is comfortable and in good repair, and the passenger facilities are ample for the business offered and transacted at that, point. The depot is a few hundred feet less than a half mile from the main street of the town of Red Rock, not farther in distance and .not so far as the distance, at several other towns in the state on Hie lino of the appellant. The public road leading from the town down to the depot is the ordinary country road. There are practically no sidewalks in Red Rock, except on Main street, and the road from the depot to the town is the average good country road. The- main section lines north and south and east .and -west cross near the depot at its present location, and the bulk of the freight shipped from Red Rock consists of live stock, grain.'and liny, which do not come from the town of Red Rock, but from the surrounding country, and the depot at its present location is most available for that class of business. The present site for the location of the depot was selected with the view of 'the location of the present system of side tracks, etc., for the accommodation of the patrons of the railway, and the present facilities are located in the best possible manner for the operation of the road. A station located at the new site would be in a cut about 10 or 12 feet deep, a great part of which is solid rock, and to make a location at this point would require the excavation of earth, loose rock, and solid rock 10 or 12 feet high and 100 feet wide, and would require a, fill-in to the south at about Fourth street and the taking out of a cast iron drain box theretofore placed by 'the company for the purpose of draining -the extensive -area contiguous to the company’s right of way.

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

Related

St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Sutton
1911 OK 67 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1918 OK 143, 171 P. 722, 68 Okla. 60, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atchison-t-s-f-ry-co-v-wolverton-okla-1918.