Wharton v. Miller

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Wharton v. Miller

1912 OK 701, 127 P. 1063, 33 Okla. 771, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 794

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 12, 1912

Docket4374

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1912 OK 701 (Wharton v. Miller) 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

Wharton v. Miller, 1912 OK 701, 127 P. 1063, 33 Okla. 771, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 794 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

It is moved that this appeal be dismissed on the ground that the petition in error shows that the appellants have no such interest as will entitle them to have the order reviewed. The order appealed from, which was made on the complaint of J. W. Miller and others, residing in the town of Willow, requires the Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway Company to “either build a depot at Willow something of the size of that now located at Moravia or Brinkman, or shall move the depot from Moravia to Willow,” and “construct some additional switch track and build stock pens and a cotton platform.” • The railroad company has not appealed from this order. After it was entered, however, the appellants, J. T. Wharton, I. R. Warren, Rounds & Porter Lumber Company, N. Massad, E. J. De Arman, O. R. Geter, S. J. Berry, William Sloan, A. F. Redburn and W. P. Lampert, of Brinkman, Okla., and Williams & Miller Gin Company and T. S. De Arman, of Moravia, Okla-, filed a petition asking to be made parties and that a rehearing thereon be granted, which was overruled by said commission.

It is settled that a party must be affected by the order or interested therein in order to appeal therefrom. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 26 Okla. 761, 110 Pac. 651; State ex rel. North Carolina Corporation Commission et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 147 N. C. 483, 61 S. E. 271; section 238, Williams’ Ann. Const. Okla., apd authorities cited under footnote “a.” Parties residing in the town of Brinkman are not interested in the facilities, conveniences, or public service afforded at Willow or at Moravia, nor are parties residing at Moravia interested in such service, conveniences, or facilities at Willow in such a way as to complain at such service, conveniences, or facilities being afforded at such place on the ground that it would be detrimental to the property interests at Brinkman and Moravia (St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 509, 122 Pac. 217), but persons residing at Moravia and using that shipping station as pat *773 rons of the road at that point are interested in the service, conveniences, or facilities afforded at such station, and would be entitled to complain of that conditional portion of the order requiring the station to be moved from Moravia to Willow.

We gather from the assignments of error and the motion for a supersedeas made in this court that in this appeal complaint is made only on the ground that the railway company under this order, in constructing a depot at Willow, would occasion a depreciation of property interests'at adjoining stations. Further, the transcript in this proceeding was filed on September IS, 1912. Neither has any response been made to the motion to dismiss this appeal, nor any brief filed by appellants.

It follows that the appeal will be dismissed.

TURNER, C. J., and PIA YES and KANE, JJ., concur; DUNN, J., absent, and not participating.

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

WILLIAMS, J.

It is moved that this appeal be dismissed on the ground that the petition in error shows that the appellants have no such interest as will entitle them to have the order reviewed. The order appealed from, which was made on the complaint of J. W. Miller and others, residing in the town of Willow, requires the Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway Company to “either build a depot at Willow something of the size of that now located at Moravia or Brinkman, or shall move the depot from Moravia to Willow,” and “construct some additional switch track and build stock pens and a cotton platform.” • The railroad company has not appealed from this order. After it was entered, however, the appellants, J. T. Wharton, I. R. Warren, Rounds & Porter Lumber Company, N. Massad, E. J. De Arman, O. R. Geter, S. J. Berry, William Sloan, A. F. Redburn and W. P. Lampert, of Brinkman, Okla., and Williams & Miller Gin Company and T. S. De Arman, of Moravia, Okla-, filed a petition asking to be made parties and that a rehearing thereon be granted, which was overruled by said commission.

It is settled that a party must be affected by the order or interested therein in order to appeal therefrom. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 26 Okla. 761, 110 Pac. 651; State ex rel. North Carolina Corporation Commission et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 147 N. C. 483, 61 S. E. 271; section 238, Williams’ Ann. Const. Okla., apd authorities cited under footnote “a.” Parties residing in the town of Brinkman are not interested in the facilities, conveniences, or public service afforded at Willow or at Moravia, nor are parties residing at Moravia interested in such service, conveniences, or facilities at Willow in such a way as to complain at such service, conveniences, or facilities being afforded at such place on the ground that it would be detrimental to the property interests at Brinkman and Moravia (St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 509, 122 Pac. 217), but persons residing at Moravia and using that shipping station as pat *773 rons of the road at that point are interested in the service, conveniences, or facilities afforded at such station, and would be entitled to complain of that conditional portion of the order requiring the station to be moved from Moravia to Willow.

We gather from the assignments of error and the motion for a supersedeas made in this court that in this appeal complaint is made only on the ground that the railway company under this order, in constructing a depot at Willow, would occasion a depreciation of property interests'at adjoining stations. Further, the transcript in this proceeding was filed on September IS, 1912. Neither has any response been made to the motion to dismiss this appeal, nor any brief filed by appellants.

It follows that the appeal will be dismissed.

TURNER, C. J., and PIA YES and KANE, JJ., concur; DUNN, J., absent, and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 701, 127 P. 1063, 33 Okla. 771, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wharton-v-miller-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack