Page:St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (185 Ark. 824).pdf/4



The above paragraph is limited by paragraph 22 of said section, and is as follows:

After a careful reading and analysis of the evidence adduced in the instant case, the court has concluded that the proposed improvement is a spur within the meaning of paragraph 22, and not an extension of the line of appellee's railroad within the meaning of § 18. The proposed improvement being a spur only, it was unnecessary to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity for a crossing from the Interstate Commerce Commission before appellee could file its application before the Railroad Commission of Arkansas to fix the place and manner of the crossing.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.