CURRENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RY CO., Appealed from the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma. Affirmed A railway company operating a line of road through a town permitted to be erected and operated at a side track on its right of way three grain elevators. Complainant engaged in the same business requested of defendant permission to build its elevator at said side track on said right of way along side of said other elevators which request was, without apparent reason denied. Complainant then, adjoining said right of way, erected its elevator and requested defendant to build a sidetrack thereto which request was also denied. On these facts the Corporation Commission ordered that track privilege be extended by defendant to complainants, said order providing that complainant pay for cross ties and grading; defendant to furnish the steel rails and switch connection and do all the work of construction without cost to complainant, HELD, that said order is just, reasonable and correct, and is affirmed. (At & S. F. Ry. Co., vs. The State of Oklahoma & Farmers Co-op Ship. Co. Okla—, followed.) (Syllabus by the Court) OPINION of the Court by TURNER, Justice. C. R. HARDIN, Plaintiff in Error, VS. R. R. KIRBY, Defendant in Error. (Rendered Jan. 11th, 1910.) Error from District Court of Johnson County. Hon. D. A. Richardson, Trial Judge. No. 336 Reversed and Remanded. In a suit to enforce a landlord's lien for rent due on a contract in writing containing no provision obligating plaintiff to repair the fence; where defendant pleaded as a counter-claim for damages a tort in effect that plaintiff wrongfully tore down said fence and turned stock in upon the crop; testimony, in effect, that prior to and at the time of the making of said contract it was agreed in parol between the parties that plaintiff would repair the fence sufficient to exclude stock, was irrele. vant and its admission over objection, error. (Syllabus by the Court.) Opinion of the Court by TURNER, J. J. W. ROOF, et al., Plaintiff in Error, VS. No. 1125 TOM FRANKS, By Next Friend. Defendant in Error. Dismissed A Case-made which fails to contain a copy of the judgment of the trial court sought to be appealed from presents no question to this court for review. (Syllabus by the Court) OPINION of the Court by TURNER, Justice. F. H. BURKE, Plaintiff in Error, VS. D. W. WALKER, Defendant in Error. (Rendered Dec. 14th, 1909.) No. 991 Appeal by Certified Record from the District Court of Oklahoma County. Geo. W. Clark, Judge. Affirmed. 1. The act of the legislature entitled: "An Act creating and establishing a county superior court for each county of the state having a population of 30,000, and a city therein of 8,000, etc., (Sess. Laws, 1908, p. 181), does not violate sections 1 and 10 of article 7 of the Constitution. * * 2. Said act is general in its nature and uniform in its operation and does not violate section 59, article 5 of the Constitution. (Syllabus by the Court) Hon. M. Fulton, Attorney for plaintiff in error. OPINION of the Court by HAYES, Justice. Plaintiff in error seeks by this proceeding to reverse an order of the district court of Oklahoma County tansfering this cause from that court to the Superior Court of Oklahoma County. Defendant in error, plaintiff below, seeks by this action in that court to recover the sum of $5,000.00 as damages for personal injuries sustained by him from an alleged assault upon his person by plaintiff in error, defendant below. The order of transfer was made upon motion of plaintiff under the provisions of $10 of an act approved Mar. 24th, 1909, entitled: "An Act creating and establishing a county superior court for each county of the state having a population of 30,000, and a city therein of 8,000, and fixing the jurisdiction of said court, etc. (Sess. Laws 1909, p. 181), which act we shall hereafter refer to as the Superior Court Act. A reversal of this order is sought upon the ground that several of the provisions of the act creating the court and conferring upon it jurisdiction of certain causes conflicts with the constitution, and that said act is lacking in essentials necessary to the establishment of any court. Section 2 of the act confers upon the courts established thereby concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court in all proceedings, causes or matters, and concurrent jurisdiction with the county court in all civil and criminal matters except matters of probate. It is urged that that portion of the section which confers concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in all matters violates section 1, of article 7 of the constitution in tha' it creates a court with jurisdiction to that of the district court, and violates sec. 10 of the same article for the reason that it confers jurisdiction upon superior courts that is by said section of the constitution conferred exclusively upon the district courts. Sec. 1 art. 7 of the constitution provides: "The judicial power of this State shall be vested in the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, a Supreme Court, District courts, County Courts, and Courts of Justice of the Peace, Municipal Courts, and such other courts, commissions or boards, inferior to the Supreme Court, as may be established by law." That portion of the section reading "and such other courts, commissions or boards, inferior to the Supreme Court as may be established by law," clearly contemplates and provides that a portion of the judicial power of the State may be vested in other' courts than those specifically named in the section. It is to be borne in mind that a state constitution, in so far as it relates to the legislative department of the State, does not grant powers but limits them, and such department posseses all the legislative powers not prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the constitution. The only limita ion imposed by this section upon the power of the legislature to create other courts is that such courts shall be inferior to the Supreme Court. The words "inferior" and "courts," as used in constitutional and statutory provisions, are sometimes used in a technical sense and apply to courts of special and limited jurisdiction which are created on such principles that their judgments, taken alone, are entirely disregarded and the proceedings must show their jurisdiction. Lessee of Robert Crignon, et al., vs. Astor, et al., 2 How. 319. They are also used in the more general sense as applying to that class of courts from which an appeal Ites to some appellate court and to express the relation between said classes of courts. Swift v. Wayne Cir. Judges, 64 Mich. 479: State vs. Daniels, 66 Mo. 192: Sanders vs. State, 55 Ala. 42. The words "inferior" and "courts" do not appear in the provisions of the constitution now under consideration in the relative positions that they occur in similar provisions of the constitutions of some of the other states. The relative positions of these words as they appear in section 1, supra, aid materially in arriving at the meaning intended. This section provides that the judicial power shall be vested in certain named courts and such other courts "inferior to the supreme court as may be established by law," the position of the word "inferior" indicates that it was intended to fix the relation that any court created by the legislature should bear to the Supreme Court, and that it was in no way attempted to fix the relation of such courts to the other courts named in said section. No limitation or prohibition is contained in this section against the legislature creating courts with jurisdiction concurring with any of the other courts named therein, and if such limitation or prohibition exists, we must look to other provisions of the constitution to find it. In Morris et al v. Bunyan, 58 Kan. 212, a provision of the Kansas constitution, not identical with the one now under consideration, but very similar, was considered by the supreme court of that State, and held not to prohibit the creation of another court having jurisdiction concurrent with the district court of that State in one or all clases of cases. The court in that opinion said; "Section 1, of the same article, vests the judicial power of the state in the supreme court, district courts, probate courts, Justices of the peace, and such other courts inferior to the supreme court as may be provided by law. No restriction is anywhere imposed on the creation of |