MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. v. STATE

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. v. STATE
1954 OK 6
266 P.2d 642
Case Number: 35674
Decided: 01/12/1954
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court

¶0 1. The following syllabus is adopted from St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. State, Okl., 262 P.2d 168.

'1. Under the provisions of the Constitution, this Court on appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission, is required to review the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the order appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and when there is such evidence reasonably tending to support the order of the Commission, such order must be sustained; and, conversely, if the order is not so sustained the Commission's order will be reversed.

'2. Record examined, and held: Commission's order denying appellant permission to discontinue its passenger trains Nos. 773 and 774 on the ground that there existed a public necessity as distinguished from a public convenience for the continued passenger train service supplied by said trains must be reversed because not supported by substantial evidence reasonably tending to sustain the order.'

Appeal from the Corporation Commission.

Wayne R. Howell, St. Louis, Mo., G.H. Penland, Dallas, Tex., Dan M. Welch, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

James G. Welch, L.D. Thomas, Jr., Montford Johnson, Oklahoma City, for Corporation Commission.

Wilson & Wilson, Fredrick, for appellee.

JOHNSON, V.C.J.

¶1 This case is here on appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma refusing permission and authority to appellant, and denying it the right to discontinue operation in Oklahoma of its passenger trains Nos. 53 and 54 between the Texas-Oklahoma State line and the City of Woodward, Oklahoma, and substituting mixed train service in lieu thereof.

¶2 The factual situation herein is substantially the same as in the recent case of St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. State, Okl., 262 P.2d 168, wherein we reversed the order of the Commission because not supported by substantial evidence reasonably tending to sustain the order. The order herein is reversed on authority of that case and the syllabus of that case is adopted as the syllabus of this case, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter an order granting the application upon the terms sought.

¶3 HALLEY, C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

WELCH, Justice (concurring specially).

¶1 I concur, but only because I regard the prior decision in St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. State, 204 Okl. 432, 230 P.2d 709, and the same parties in Okl., 262 P.2d 168, as binding on this court and controlling upon the issues involved in this case, and thus requiring that we reverse here.