
    St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. et al. v. State.
    No. 782.
    Opinion Filed October 20, 1909.
    (104 Pac. 1092.)
    RAILROAD RATES — Regulation by Corporation Commission... Syllabus same as in Midland Valley R. Co. et a.l. v. State, No. 736 decided at this term, ante, p. 817. 104 Pac. 1086.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Appeal from Corporation Commission.
    
    Action by the State against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Bailway Company and others. From an order fixing the freight rates, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Bail-way Company and others appeal.
    Bemanded, with directions.
    On the 20th day of January, A. D. 1908,- this proceeding was begun by the Corporation Commission against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Bailway Company, the St. Louis & San Francisco Bailroad Company, the Midland Valley Baiiroad Company, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Bailway Company, the Atcli-ison, Topeka & Santa Ee Railway Company, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Ee .Railway Company, tbe Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, the Ft. Smith & Western Railway Company, the Kansas ■ City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company,- the Oklahoma Central Rail road Compaq, and Asa E. Ramsey as receiver thereof, and the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Company, by causing to be published in the Guthrie Leader, a daily paper published in Guthrie, Logan county, Oírla., a notice of the proposed order No. 8, and afterwards, on the 16th day of May, A. D. 1908, pursuant to such notice, which was in due form and published as-required by law, hearing was had thereon, and final order No. 45, fixing intrastate rates on hay, grain, grain products, and such commod-' ities, was made and entered. Thereafter, on the 15th day of March, A. D. 1909, the appellants, said railway companies, presented to the chairman of the Corporation Commission their request in writing for certification of all evidence heard in such case, and the facts and reasons upon which said final order was based, which was denied, On the 16th day of March, A. D. 1909, said appellants made application to this court for writ of mandamus requiring such certi.fication, which was granted and complied with on the 1th day of April, A. D.-1909. Thereafter, on the 11th day of September, A. D. 1909, the counsel for the appellee mov’ed ■to dismiss this appeal for the reasons: (1) That the same was neither taken nor application made for the certification within due time. (2) That the record fails to contain a finding of fact, although the certificate recites that such finding of facts as made by the commission was • not made of record, and could not be transmitted. (3) That it was the duty of the appellants to.take steps to preserve the record, in the event they desired to appeal.
    
      S. T. Bledsoe, O. O. Blake, Clifford L. Jackson, and Bdgdr A. De Meules, for appellants.
    
      Geo. A. Menshaw, Asst. xAtty. Gen., for the State.
   WILLIAMS, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The case of the Midland Valley Railroad Co. et al., Appellants, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee, decided at this term of court, ante, p. 817, 104 Pac. 1086, is decisive of this case, both as to law and fact.

■ The motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly overruled, and the case remanded, with the same instruction.

All the Justices concur.  