THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, RELATORS,
v.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's Railroad Commissioners issued an order prescribing a passenger train schedule to ensure connections at stated points. When the railway company violated the order without permission, the state sought a writ of mandamus to compel compliance. The court held that the Commissioners had constitutional and statutory authority to regulate common carrier schedules in the public interest.
The court held that the Railroad Commissioners possessed ample authority under the state constitution and statutes to make just and reasonable regulations of railroad schedules concerning connections, and that such regulations are prima facie reasonable and just. The court overruled the demurrer to the alternative writ.
“The legislature is invested with full power to pass laws for the correction of abuses and to prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges by persons and corporations engaged as common carriers”
Establishes constitutional basis for state regulation of railroad rates and services
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Railroad Commissioners prescribed a schedule for passenger trains of the Florida East Coast Railway Company to ensure connections at specific poin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Carrier Regulation cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The alternative writ alleges in effect that the Railroad Commissioners prescribed a schedule for certain passenger trains of the respondent so-as to make connections at stated points; that respondent observed the schedule for a time, and then without notice to or permission from the Railroad Commissioners disobeyed the order and changed the schedule so that the connections are not made as contemplated by the action of the Railroad Commissioners.
The command of the writ is to obey the order of the Railroad Commissioners fixing the schedule or to show cause for not doing so.
A demurrer to the alternative writ was filed and counsel argues that the Railroad Commissioners have no power to make the order prescribing the schedule and that the writ is defective in its allegations.
Section 30 of Article XVI of the State Constitution declares that “The legislature is invested with full power to pass laws for the correction of abuses and to prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges by persons and corporations engaged as common carriers in transporting persons and property, or performing other service of a public nature; and shall .provide for enforcing such laws by adequate penalties or forfeitures.”
This section is not a grant of power to the legislature, nor is it a limitation upon the power of the legislature, but it is an -express recognition of a power-existing in the legislative department of the State government. See State ex rel. Lamar v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 South. Rep. 225.
Even if the section were a limitation and the power of the legislature were restricted by the provision, it may be that the order of the Railroad Commissioners that has been violated was adopted to correct an abuse or to prevent an unjust discrimination by the common carrier. While a discretion is allowed a common carrier corporation in the discharge of its duties to the public, such discretion must be exercised in good faith, within the limitations of the law and with reasonable regard for the public welfare, and is subject to review and to lawful regulation. See State ex rel. Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 Fla. 650, 44 South. Rep. 213, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 320.
A lawful governmental regulation of the service of common carriers, though it may be a burden, is not a violation of constitutional rights to acquire, possess and protect property, to due process of law and to equal protection of the laws, since those who devote their property to the uses of a common carrier, do so subject to the right of governmental regulation in the interest of - the common welfare. See State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 South. Rep. 969; Corporation Commission v. Railroad, 137 N. C. 1.
The general and special powers given to the Railroad Commissioners by the statute are ample to authorize them to make just and reasonable regulations of the schedules of railroads with reference to connections so as to afford reasonable convenience and comfort to the public affected by the service; and all such regulations when made are by the statute declared to be prima facie reasonable and just. Even where a particular regulation causes a pecuniary-loss to the carrier, if it is reasonable with reference to the just demands of the public to be affected by it and it does not arbitrarily impose an unreasonable burden upon the carrier, the regulation will not be a taking of property in violation of the constitution. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Comm’rs. 206 U. S. 1; 11 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 398 and note.
The order of the Railroad Commissioners, which the demurrer admits has been violated by the respondent, appears to be within the powers of the Commissioners, and is under the statute prima facie reasonable and just. Counsel has not pointed out any particulars wherein the alternative writ is fatally defective in its allegations, and no such defects are apparent.
The demurrer to the alternative writ is overruled with leave to the respondent to' take such further and proper action herein as it may be advised by Monday, April 5th, 1909.
All concur, except Farkhill, J., absent on acount of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Amos v. Shelton J. Gunn, 84 Fla. 285 (Fla. 1922)…ture to'impose excise, occupational or other taxes that are in the nature of license or privilege taxes.- It is an express declaration of a power that exists in the legisla [*361] ture. See State ex rel. Railroad Com’rs v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 57 Fla. 522, 49 South. Rep. 43. The State and Federal Constitutions and Federal laws and treaties contain no limitation upon the power of the State legislature to impose license taxes within its jurisdiction except that due process, equal protection and contra…
-
State v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1920)…es charged by common' carriers; and the power may be exercised notwithstanding statutory or municipal regulations or private contracts that may have been made with reference to such rates. State ex rel. Railroad Com’rs. v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 57 Fla. 522, 49 South. Rep. 43; City of Tampa v. Tampa Water Works Co., 45 Fla. 600, 34 South. Rep. 631, affirmed in 199 U. S. 241, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23; State ex rel. Lamar v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 South. Rep. 225. Under Section 8, Article…
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Fla. Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1938)…R. A. (N. S.) 639; State, ex rel., v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 So. 61; City of Tampa v. Tampa Water Works Co., 45 Fla. 600, 34 So. 631, affirmed in Tampa Water Works Co. v. Tampa, 199 U. S. 241, 26 Sup. Ct. 23, 50 L. Ed. 170; State v. F. E. C. Ry. Co., 57 Fla. 522, 49 So. 43; Gainesville G. & E. Power Co. v. Gainesville, 63 Fla. 425, 58 So. 785; So. Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 86 Fla. 583, 99 So. 236, 268 U. S. 232, 45 Sup. Ct. 488, 69 L. Ed. 930; State v. So. Tel. & Const. Co., 65 Fla. 270, 61 So. 506; State v…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 56 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1908)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. N.C. Corp. Comm'n, 206 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1907)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. W. H. Ellis v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 53 Fla. 650 (Fla. 1907)
- The State of Fla. upon the relation of William B. Lamar as Attorney-General of the State of Fla. v. The Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1899)