# S. H. Chase Lumber Co. v. Railroad Commission

> California Supreme Court · May 29, 1931 · 212 Cal. 691

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3298125

## Case

- **Full name:** S. H. CHASE LUMBER COMPANY (A Corporation) Et Al., Petitioners, v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 29, 1931
- **Citations:** 212 Cal. 691; 300 P. 12; 1931 Cal. LEXIS 671
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Shenk
- **Judges:** Preston, Richards, Seawell, Shenk
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3298125

## Opinion text

SHENK, J.,
Dissenting. — I dissent. I am in harmony with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Preston. The effect of the majority opinion is a distinct backward step in the elimination of grade crossings in this state. The program of the state through its legislature and Railroad Commission to safeguard the life and property of the motoring public is thus greatly delayed by declaring unconstitutional a statute providing for an expeditious and practical method for the separation of grades.
The case of
East Bay M.
77.
Dist.
v.
Railroad Com.,
194 Cal. 603 [ 229 Pac. 949 ], is not in point. There a public agency not then authorized to invoke the powers of the Railroad Commission under section 23a of article XII of the Constitution was endeavoring to- compel the Commission to fix and determine the compensation to be paid by the petitioner in contemplation of eminent domain proceedings against the East Bay Water Co., and it was held that under the provisions of the Constitution in force at the time the relief could not be granted. There condemnation was the sole purpose of the proceeding and no question of the regulation of the public utility was involved. Here the condemnation is merely incidental to the main purpose of regulation ‘and control of the public utility.
Waste, C. J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
Shenk, J., and Preston, J., dissented.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3298125. Public record. Not legal advice.