ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
FLORIDA EX REL. ELLIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL
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 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company challenged a Florida railroad commission order that reduced the rate for transporting phosphate as a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the state court's decision, holding that the railroad failed to present sufficient evidence regarding the cost of phosphate transportation, the volume of phosphates carried, or the financial impact of the rate change, and therefore the state court did not err in refusing to overturn the commission's order.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brewer,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
Passing all matters of a local nature, in respect to which the decision of the state court is final, the Federal question is whether the order of the railroad commission, sustained by the Supreme Court of the State, deprived the company of its property without due process of law or denied to it the equal protection of the law. The testimony taken before the commission was not preserved, but by the'law of the State the rates established by such commission are to be. taken in all courts as prima facie just and reasonable. Laws Florida, 1899, pp. 76, 82, Chap. 4700, Sec. 8. We start, therefore, with the presumption in favor of the order. The testimony on the hearing of the application in the Supreme Court is, however, in the record. That court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction of mandamus cases, determines questions of fact as well as of law. State ex rel. v. County Commissioners of Suwannee County, 21 Florida, 1. While it did not'make any distinct findings of fact, yet its deductions from the testimony are clearly indicated by the quotations from its opinion. If it be said that in the absence of special findings of fact it is the duty of this court to examine the testimony upon which the judgment was entered, it is very clear that there was no sufficient evidence presented to that court to justify a refusal to enforce the order of the railroad commission.
And here we face this situation: The order of the commission was not operative upon all local rates but only fixed the rate on a single article, to wit, phosphate. There is no evidence of the amount of phosphates carried locally; neither is it shown how much a change in the rate of carrying them will affect the income, nor how much the rate fixed by the railroads for carrying phosphate has been changed by the order of the commission. There is testimony tending to show the gross income from all local freights and the value of the railroad property, .and also certain difficulties in the way of transporting phosphates owing to the lack of facilities at the terminals. But there is nothing from which we can determine the cost of such transportation.. We are aware of the difficulty which attends proof of the cost of transporting a single article, and in order to determine the. reasonableness of a rate prescribed it may sometimes be necessary to accept as a basis the average rate of all transportation per ton per mile. We shall not attempt to indicate to what extent or in what cases the inquiry must be special and limited. It is enough for the present to hold that there is in the record nothing from which a reasonable deduction can be made as to the cost of transportation, the amount of phosphates transported, or the effect which the •rate established by the commission will have upon the income. Under these circumstances it is impossible to hold that there was error in the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, and its judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 56 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1908)…the subject regulated and the effect of the burden on the entire business of the carrier should be considered. Corporation Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. Rep. 191; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Florida ex rel. Ellis, 203 U. S. 256, 27 Sup. Ct. 108; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585. In determining whether the adoption and enforcement of Demurrage Rule 8 is a valid exercise of a power lawfully conferred upon…
-
State v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 69 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1915)…when such demonstration is made, appropriate relief is a matter of right. Railroad Com’rs v. St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 230 U. S. 553, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1030. But no such demonstration appears in this case. A. C. L. R. Co. v State ex rel. Ellis, 203 U. S. 256, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108. If the rule operates unjustly in particular instances owing to peculiar circumstances, there is a remedy afforded by due course at law. It does not appear that because of Rule 19 a joint rate for a given distance over two lin…1 / 2
-
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. State of N.D. on Relation of McCue, 236 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1915)…umed in the decisions of this court, that the State has no arbitrary power over the carrier’s rates and may not select a particular commodity or class of traffic for carriage without reasonable reward. [*602] In Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Florida, 203 U. S. 256, 260, and in Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 270, there was an attack upon a rate on a single article, to wit, on phosphates, but the proof as to the effect of the rate and the cost of the transportation was found to be insuffic…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State ex rel. The Cnty. Comm'rs of Columbia Cnty. v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Suwannee Cnty., 21 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1884)