Opinion of the court by

Sections 68a-c of the Code of Civil Procedure (Statutes Oklahoma 1893,) describe the manner in which summons must be served upon corporations. The service was invalid under either of the first three sections, and, if valid at all, must be under section 68c, which provides that: “If any railroad * * company or corporation fail to designate or appoint such persons as in the preceding section's is provided and required (upon whom service of summons might be had) such process may *319 be served on any local superintendent oí repairs, freight agent, agent to sell tickets or station keeper of such company or corporation, in suck county, or suck process may be served by leaving a copy thereof, certified by the officer to whom the same is directed, to be a trus copy, at any depot or station of suck company or corporation in suck county, with some person in charge thereof, or in the employ of suck company or corporation, and suck service shall be held and deemed complete and effectual.” William Gane, upon whom the service was made, was a conductor of the defendant company, and was in its “employ,” and, as the return of the summons shows, was found at the station of said defendant. And the question in the case is whether the place at which service was had was, in the sense of the statute, such a “station” as is comtemplated in the statute. The point was passed upon by the court below, and the place where the summons was served upon Gane was determined, under the facts in the case, to have been a “station,” and the point is now here to be considered and determined upon the facts and the law.

The defendant had no station agent in the county of Beaver. The business of the short spur or piece of track laid into Beaver county was managed from Liberal. Regular trains were not run by the defendant into Beaver county, but were stopped at Liberal. Passengers were not carried, at least for hire, over the piece of track referred to. Charges were not made for running trains upon that track. The trains ran irregularly, and only when trains of cattle were to be shipped from the Territory; and these trains were billed and charged for from Liberal. No point in Beaver county was treated as a station. No depot building was erected there, and no *320 agent kept there. It is not shown that any shelter was provided for either passengers or freight, or that any freight was shipped over the piece of track referred to, except that cattle were shipped at irregular intervals from the cattle chute mentioned in the affidavits. The poinc is not referred to in the company’s printed list of stations or time schedules, and there is no evidence to show that the company ever intended to establish a station at this place. We cannot, therefore, hold that the point at which summons was served upon the conductor, who was in the “employ” of the defendant, to have been a station, under the meaning of the statute, and must, therefore, hold the service to have been void. There is no equity in the matter in behalf of the defendants in error, since the statute provides that service may be made upon the “local superintendent of repairs” of the railway company. (State v. New Haven & N. Co., 41 Conn. 134; Railroad Co .v. Pickard, 8 Colo. 163, 6 Pac. 149; Beauchamp v. Railroad Co., 56 Tex. 239.)

The judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed.