St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (289 U.S. 76)

by the Supreme Court of the United States

For works with similar titles, see St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co..

United States Supreme Court

289 U.S. 76

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.  v.  Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.

Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas

No. 364  Argued: Jan. 18, 1933. --- Decided: March 27, 1933

1. In a proceeding under an Arkansas statute to determine the place and manner in which a proposed track of one railroad may cross the track of another railroad, the question whether the proposed track is an " extension" for the construction of which a certificate must first be obtained from the Interstate Commerce Commission was irrelevant. P. 81.
2. The remedy of a railroad company which objects to a proposed crossing as an "extension" for which no certificate has been granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, is not b defense in the state proceeding to fix the place and manner of crossing, but by suit for injunction under paragraph 20 of § 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act. P. 82.
3. A judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in the state statutory proceeding, merely fixing the place and manner of the crossing, is not in conflict with the federal law, whether the proposed track will be a spur or an extension. P. 83.
4. Where the state supreme court, besides ordering the fixing of the place and manner of crossing, characterized the proposed track as a spur and not an extension, thus undertaking to decide an irrelevant federal question,-held that the judgment, and its affirmance in other respects by this Court, would not operate as res judicata on that question. P. 84.

185 Ark. 824; 49 S.W. (2d) 1054, affirmed.

CERTIORARI, 287 U.S. 589, to review the affirmance of a judgment which reversed an order of the Arkansas Railroad Commission denying an application to fix the place and manner of a proposed crossing of railroad tracks.

Mr. Harold R. Small, with whom Mr. Arthur L. Adams was on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Robert E. Wiley, with whom Mr. Edward J. White was on the brief, for respondent.

[p77] MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opiaon of the Court.