TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Love

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Love Et Al.

Kan. City Southern Ry. Co. v. Love, 1909 OK 31, 100 P. 22
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 9, 1909
Docket
No. 606
Judges
Williams
Citations
100 P. 221909 OK 3123 Okla. 2241909 Okla. LEXIS 342
Disposition
Awarded on condition.
Cited by 7
Syllabus
1-. CORPORATION COMMISSION — Appeal from Orders — Procedure.- At any time within 12 months from the date a final order is made by the Corporation Commission, any proper party feeling aggrieved may prosecute an appeal therefrom by making application to the chairman of said commission for him, under the seal of said commission, to certify to this court all the facts' upon which the action appealed from was based, and which may be essential for the proper decision of the appeal, together with such evidence introduced -before, or considered by the commission as may be selected, specified, and reauired to be certified by any party in interest, as well as such other evidence so introduced or considered as the commission may deem proper to certify, and also a written statement of the reasons upon which the action sought to be appealed from is based, to.be filed with the record of the case, which will constitute the record for review in this court. 2. SAME — Motion for New Trial Not Necessary. It is not necessary that a motion for a new trial -be filed and presented to the commission in order to have this court, on appeal, determine the reasonableness and justness of the order of the commission from which the appeal is prosecuted. (Syllabus -by the Court.)
Summary
Application by the Kansas City Southern Railway Company for an order to J. E. Love, chairman, and the Corporation Commission, to certify facts on which a certain order issued by the commission was based. Original application for an order directing the chairman of the Corporation Commission, or said commission, to certify, under the seal of said commission, to this court, all of the facts upon which order No. 105 was based, and which may be essential for a proper decision of the appeal from said order, together with such evidence introduced before or considered by the commission in making said order as may be selected, specified, and required to be certified by any party in interest, as well as such other evidence so introduced or considered as the commission may deem proper to certify, and also a written statement of the reasons upon which the action sought to' be appealed from is based, and a copy of the complaint and answer and of the order in said action, and further for a supersedeas. Awarded on condition.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

Williams, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The following questions are raised in this case: (1) May an appeal be taken from a final order of the Corporation Commission on a record certified in accordance with the provisions of section 22, art. 9 (section 234, Bunn’s Ed.; page 259, Snyder’s Ed.), of the Constitution of Oklahoma? (2) When shall a supersedeas be 'issued after the time prescribed by the commission in its order for a certain facility to be furnished has expired?

The first question has been decided in the affirmative in the case of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Plaintiff v. J. E .Love, Chairman, and the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants (No. 553, recently decided by this- court) ante, p., 99 Pac. 1081 .

The question as to the granting of a supersedeas will -be re *226 served until the record has been properly certified to this court under the seal of the Corporation Commission by its chairman'.- The order as to the certificate to be made by the chairman of the commission will he awarded as prayed for, but not issued at this time.

If the chairman of the commission fails to make such certificate, under the seal of the commission, and such written statement, and transmit the same to the clerk of this court, in accordance with such request, upon advice of our conclusious, the plaintiff may renew its motion.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1909: 11910: 11912: 11920: 11925: 11934: 11937: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lone Star Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission1934 OK 396, 39 P.2d 547 · Dissent
  2. Muskogee Gas & Electric Co. v. State1920 OK 6, 186 P. 730
  3. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Williams1910 OK 52, 107 P. 428
  4. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State1937 OK 461, 71 P.2d 747
  5. Midland Valley R. Co. v. State1909 OK 252, 104 P. 1086
  6. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Miller1912 OK 222, 123 P. 1047

Most recent

  1. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State1937 OK 461, 71 P.2d 747
  2. Lone Star Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission1934 OK 396, 39 P.2d 547 · Dissent
  3. Pressure Oil & Gas Co. v. Tri-City Gas Co.1925 OK 334, 236 P. 41
  4. Muskogee Gas & Electric Co. v. State1920 OK 6, 186 P. 730
  5. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Miller1912 OK 222, 123 P. 1047
  6. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Williams1910 OK 52, 107 P. 428

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Love, 99 P. 1081 (Okla. 1909) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list