St. Louis, I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. State

    53 Okla. 341 (Okla. 1916)   Cited 2 times

    The location of a railway station, of course, belongs to the public duties of the commission, when the question is, whether its location at a certain point is for the benefit and interest of the traveling or railroad-using public. If, however, these considerations are ignored, or, if considered, are held to be subordinate, and other elements are considered as paramount, which are aside from either the public duty or the interest of the traveling or railroad-using public, or the necessities of the operation of the railroad, then an order made with the latter for a basis must be held to be unreasonable and without legal sanction. A., T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. State, 28 Okla. 797, 115 P. 872; St. Louis, I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 509, 122 P. 217. We think the contention of those who, moved from the townsite where the depot was located by order of the commission to the one laid out by Mr. Pratt, one of the complainants herein, is unanswerably met by the part of the former opinion of the commission, wherein they say:

  2. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Redwine

    143 P. 847 (Okla. 1914)   Cited 1 times

    Applying this test, we feel that there is but one question before us, and that is the location of the depot. Counsel for the state cite St. L., I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 509, 122 P. 217, and M., K. T. Ry. Co. v. State, 38 Okla. 401, 133 P. 35, cases involving the location of depots, but, by reason of the many elements that enter into the solution of a problem of this character and the varying conditions between given points, they are such that each case must depend entirely upon the facts involved therein. We do not feel that either of the cases cited can control this case.

  3. St. Louis, I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. Lewis

    136 P. 396 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 13 times

    " See, also, St. Louis, I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. State, 28 Okla. 372, 111 P. 396, 114 P. 1096; St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Sutton, 29 Okla. 553, 119 P. 423; on rehearing, 29 Okla. 563, 119 P. 427; Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. State et al., 29 Okla. 777, 119 P. 413; St. L., I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 509, 122 P. 217. It requires neither argument nor further citation of authorities to show that defendant was guilty of a breach of duty, imposed by the Constitution and statutory provisions we have quoted, proximately resulting in pain and suffering to plaintiff, and amounting to actionable negligence, for which she was entitled to recover damages, unless she was guilty of contributory negligence in declining timely invitation to sit by the fire in the agent's office or such declination was the sole proximate cause of her pain and suffering.

  4. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. State

    38 Okla. 401 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 4 times

    In our judgment this consideration should have no weight as against the personal safety of the employees and patrons of the respective roads. In St. L. I. M. Ry. Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 509, 122 P. 217, Mr. Justice Dunn, after detailing some of the facts and elements to be taken into consideration by the Corporation Commission in determining the location of a railway station, among which safety is given a commanding position, says: "If the considerations referred to are ignored, or, if considered, are held to be subordinate, and other elements are considered as paramount, which are aside from either the public duties, or the interests of the traveling public, or the necessities of the operation of the trains, then an order made with the latter for its basis must be held to be unreasonable and without legal sanction."

  5. Wharton v. Miller

    33 Okla. 771 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 1 times

    Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. State, 26 Okla. 761, 110 P. 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., and 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 P. 217), but persons residing at Moravia and using that shipping station as patrons 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.