THE TOWN OF BROOKSVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND W. W. THOMPSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE FLORIDA TELEPHONE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The Town of Brooksville and a resident sought to enjoin the Florida Telephone Company from charging rates higher than those fixed in its franchise ordinance. The Florida Supreme Court held that rates set by a municipality in a franchise are subject to legislative control through the Railroad Commission, and that a Railroad Commission order authorizing higher rates constitutes a valid defense to the injunction suit.
The court held that rates or tolls fixed by a municipality in a franchise ordinance are subject to legislative control and regulation. A Railroad Commission order duly made authorizing rates higher than those in the franchise ordinance constitutes a valid defense to an equitable action seeking to enforce the lower franchise rates.
“This court has held that rates or tolls to be charged by a public service corporation for services rendered, fixed by a municipality by ordinance as an incident to the granting of a franchise to it by such municipality, are subject to legislative control.”
Establishes the core holding that municipal rate-fixing through franchises is subject to legislative control
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Brooksville and a resident citizen filed an equitable action to enjoin the Florida Telephone Company from charging rates exceeding the max…
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.
West, J.
The Town of Brooksville and a resident citizen of the town by bill in equity sought to enjoin the Florida Telephone Company, a corporation, from charging complainant's and others higher rates for telephone service in the town than the maximum rates fixed" for such service in the franchise from the town to defendant’s predecessor by which the right to conduct such business was granted. The defendant in its answer admitted that it was charging for the service rendered higher rates than the maximum rates fixed in the franchise ordinance for such service, but averred that it did so pursuant to an order of the Railroad Commission of the State, acting in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 6525, Acts of 1913, Laws of Florida, and the rates being charged were the rates allowed and fixed for the service by such order, made at a hearing before the Railroad Commission subsequently to the enactment of the franchise ordinance, notice of which hearing had prevously thereto been duly given.
Complainants sought to have the paragraph of the answer setting up this defense stricken, but the motion to strike was denied and this appeal was taken from the order denying motion. This order is assigned as error. By Chapter 6525 power is given the Railroad Commission to regulate rates, tolls, contracts and charges of telephone companies doing business in this State. That the business of defendant is so affected by public interest as to permit its reasonable regulation by public authority is not disputed. This court has held that rates or tolls to be charged by a public service corporation for services rendered, fixed by a municipality by ordinance as an incident to the granting of a franchise to it by such municipality, are subject to legislative control. The averments of the answer, therefore, to the effect that the increase in rates charged by defendant was in accordance with an order of the Railroad Commission duly made, notwithstanding the franchise ordinance relied on by complainants, set up a good defense to the bill of complaint and the order overruling the motion to strike this paragraph of the answer is affirmed upon authority of State v. Rail road Commission, 79 Fla. 526, 84 South. Rep. 444; State v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 South. Rep. 61; City of Tampa v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 45 Fla. 600, 34 South. Rep. 631; State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 South. Rep. 225. See also Dubuque Electric Co. v. Dubuque, 171 C. C. A. 219, 260 Fed. Rep. 353, 10 A. L. R. 495.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Fla. Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1938)…o. 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. Peninsular Tel. Co., 73 Fla. 913, 75 So. 201; Town of Brooksville v. Fla. Tel. Co., 81 Fla. 436, 88 So. 307; State v. R R. Comm., 79 Fla. 526, 84 So. 444; Central Truck [*52] Lines, Inc., v. R. R. Comm., 118 Fla. 555, 160 So. 26; Ortega Co. v. Triay, 260 U. S. 103, 43 Sup. Ct. 44, 67 L. Ed. 153; State, ex rel., v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377, 2…
-
Miami Bridge Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of the State of Fla., 155 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1944)…Co. v. Gainesville, 63 Fla. 425, 58 So. 585; State ex rel Triay v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 So. 61; State ex rel. Railroad Commissioners v. Southern Telephone & Const. Co., 65 Fla. 270, 61 So. 506; Town of Brooksville v. Florida Tel. Co., 81 Fla. 436, 88 So. 307; Southern Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 86 Fla. 583, 99 So. 236 (aff. 268 U. S. 232, 45 S. Ct. 488, 69 L. Ed. 930); Demeter Land Co. v. Public Service Co., 99 Fla. 954, 128 So. 402. Petitioner’s fourth question posed for adjudication is: Do the courts…
-
S. Utils. Co. v. City of Palatka, 86 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1923)…ny, contract rates are binding if duly stipulated for (Miami Gas Co. v. Highleyman, 77 Fla. 523, 81 South. Rep. 775; 28 C. J. 575); but the Legislature may at any time regulate the rates by due course of law. Town of Brooksville v. Florida Tel. Co., 81 Fla. 436, 88 South. Rep. 307. The Legislature, in - authorizing municipalities to contract for rates, and municipalities in making the authorized contracts, do not “contract or barter away their gov [*608] ernmental powers.” Such authority to contract may b…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1920)
- The City of Tampa v. The Tampa Waterworks Co., 45 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1903)
- State v. The R.R. Comm'rs of the State of Fla., 79 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1920)
- Burns v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- 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)