ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. v. STATE

ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. v. STATE
1954 OK 164
271 P.2d 338
Case Number: 36072
Decided: 05/25/1954
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court

¶0 1. Railroads may only be required to maintain a regular station agent when the evidence shows either that it is profitable or that there are peculiar circumstances in the case showing that the public convenience and necessity is such that it would require them to operate there in any event and where railroad's evidence in support of its application to discontinue a station substantially negatives these prerequisites, it is error for the Corporation Commission to order the continuance of an agency.
2. Record examined, and held that Corporation Commission's order ordering continuance of a station agent at designated station is not sustained by substantial evidence.

Appeal from the Corporation Commission.

Satterfield, Franklin & Harmon, Oklahoma City, John E. McCullough, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

James G. Welch, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, V.C.J.

¶1 On April 13, 1951, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, plaintiff in error, filed an application with the Corporation Commission to discontinue the maintenance of a regular station agent at Sasakwa, Oklahoma. This application was denied and the railway company appeals.

¶2 The railway company introduced the total station revenue over a period of two years preceding the date of the hearing and the total expense of operation. The operation showed a loss. The only possible legal way to require a railroad to maintain an agency is to show either that it is profitable or that there are peculiar circumstances in the case showing that the public convenience and necessity is such that it would require them to operate there in any event. No such showing was made. Lowden v. State, 182 Okl. 549, 78 P.2d 1059; Kurn v. State, 175 Okl. 379, 52 P.2d 841; and Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. State, 189 Okl. 485, 118 P.2d 202.

¶3 We are of the opinion and hold that from a review of the entire record it is shown that the Corporation Commission erred in refusing the application.

¶4 The cause is remanded to the Corporation Commission with directions to vacate the order denying the application and enter an order granting the application in accordance with the views herein expressed.

¶5 HALLEY, C.J., and WELCH, CORN, ARNOLD, O'NEAL and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

¶6 DAVISON and BLACKBIRD, JJ., dissent.