STATE, EX REL. NATIONAL TRUCKING COMPANY,
v.
J. M. LEE, AS STATE COMPTROLLER
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.
National Trucking Company sought a writ of mandamus against the State Comptroller, challenging a tax assessment on contract carriers. The Florida Supreme Court held that contract carriers, like common carriers, must include the cost of empty return trips when calculating rates, and therefore the alternative writ should be quashed.
Contract carriers must account for the cost of empty return trips when figuring prices and terms of contracts. The same statutory principles and construction applicable to common carriers in the companion case apply to contract carriers, and therefore the alternative writ should be quashed.
“when the Relator contracts to convey merchandise from one point to another he must necessarily, when figuring the prices and terms of his contract, take into consideration the fact that his motor vehicle will in all probability carry load but one way and the expense of one way of the trip empty must be included as a part of the basis upon which his compensation is to be fixed”
Establishes the holding that contract carriers must factor in empty return trip costs when calculating rates
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNational Trucking Company was a contract carrier operating motor vehicles to convey merchandise between points. Unlike common carriers, the Railroad C…
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
This is a companion case to that of State of Florida, ex rel. Five Transportation Company, et al., v. J. M. Lee, as Comptroller of the State of Florida.
The principal difference in the two cases is that in this case the Relator is a contract carrier while in the former case the Relators were auto transportation companies engaged in the business of a common carrier.
*534It is true that as to the business of this Relator the Railroad Commission does not establish either routes or schedules, but it does approve the rates fixed by the Relator. The Relator is required to file its rates with the Commission. We take it that when the Relator contracts to convey merchandise from one point to another he must necessarily, when figuring the prices and terms of his contract, take into consideration the fact that his motor vehicle will in all probability carry load but one way and the expense of one way of the trip empty must be included as a part of the basis upon which his compensation is to be fixed.
We think there is no difference in the principles to be applied in this case and in the companion case and that there is no difference in the construction of the statute which should be applied in one case to that which is applied in the other.
Therefore, upon authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of State of Florida, ex rel. Five Transportation Company, v. J. M. Lee, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, decided at this Term, the alternative writ should be quashed and it is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Supplemental Opinion.
A demurrer to the answer and return of ■the respondent herein being on file when the last order herein was entered, it is now considered and ordered that the order quashing the alternative writ is vacated and the demurrer to the answer and return is overruled and the relator is allowed twenty days in which to join issue on the answer and return of the respondent, or to further plead-if so desired.
*535It is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Nat'l Trucking Co. v. Lee, 139 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1939)…Per Curiam. This case is before us for consideration pursuant to oral argument after rehearing was granted pursuant to our opinion and judgment filed and entered January 22, 1938 (181 Sou. 182) to allow relators to join issue on affirmative allegations of answer and to take testimony before a commissioner appointed for that purpose. Having considered the record as it now appears, we find the allegations of the answer sufficient and suppor…