EDWARD E. HAGAN AND MARGARET E. HAGAN, DOING BUSINESS AS H & H STORAGE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
WILBUR C. KING, RICHARD A. MACK AND JERRY W. CARTER, COMMISSIONERS, FLORIDA RAILROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Railroad and Public Utilities Commission's refusal to approve the transfer of a motor carrier certificate from its holder to the petitioners and the requested change in domicile from Tampa to Lakeland. The court held that the Commission had authority to require evidence of public convenience and necessity when considering changes to material terms of an existing certificate, such as domicile location.
The Commission had authority to consider the question of public convenience and necessity regarding a change in domicile, and the denial of the transfer petition was supported by law and evidence. A change in domicile involves something far more significant than routine certificate modifications and is distinct from simple transfers of holder rights or minor product changes.
“We have the view that the order of the Commission is supported by the law and the evidence and must be sustained.”
The court's holding that the Commission's denial of the certificate transfer with domicile change was proper and justified.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBen Haywood held a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing transportation of household goods over irregular routes throughout Flor…
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 Public Convenience And Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
Ben Haywood is the holder of a certificate1 of public convenience-and necessity issued by the Florida' Railroad and Public Utilities Commission. The certificate, which authorizes the transportation of household goods, non-radially over irregular routes, to, from and between all points and places in the State of Florida, contains a provision that the motor vehicle equipment involved shall be domiciled only in Tampa, Florida.
The petitioners and the certificate holder filed a petition before the Commission for an .approval -of , the, transfer of. the certificate from the hqlder to the petitioners. The joint petition sought not only the transfer of the certificate but also the authority to change the domicile-of the motor vehicle equipment to be used in the contemplated operation to Lakeland, Florida, rather than Tampa, Florida, as provided in the original certificate. After a hearing the Commission refused to approve or giant the petition, so far as it sought a change of ' domicile, and the present certiorari proceeding is brought to review the order. We have the view that the order of the Commission is supported by the law and the evidence and must be sustained. The basic contention of the petitioners,- that the Commission had no authority to consider, or require evidence on, the question of • whether or not “public convenience and necessity” would permit a new carrier in the city to which petitioners requested transfer -of domicile, would not seem to have any sound basis in logic or any of the-Controlling statutory provisions. See section 323.03, Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A. Nor does the case relied on by petitioners, Bentons Bros. Film Express, Inc. v. Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Commission, Fla., 57 So. 2d 435, permitting the extension of a -certificate so -as to authorize the carrying of additional products on the saíne route without evidence‘of. necessity, support the contention that a change in -the terms or conditions of an existing certificate would never require’evidence of public convenience and necessity. Certainly, an alteration of the domicile of the carrier, such as is sought by. the petitioner, involves something vastly more important than a mere' change in the’name of the holder, a simple-transfer of thé rights of the-original holder, or, as‘in’ the ’Benton case, a minor change in the number of products ' that could be carried to the same patrons under already existing schedules along specified’ roiités. ' Compare Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 158 Fla. 68, 27 So. 2d 658, which'clearly indicates that a transfer of a certificate' may involve the question of public necessity.
The petition for certiorari should be denied. - ’
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and HOBSON’ and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonard Bros. Transfer & Storage Co., Inc. v. Boyd, 104 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1958)…nvolved. Rather, the sole matter then before the Commission was whether the transfer of the certificate should be authorized and if so the conditions of the transfer. Further supporting the conclusion which we here reach is Hagan v. King, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 592. Admittedly, that case involved a transfer of a. certificate of authority to haul household goods. In that case the application was for authority to transfer the certificate and at the same time authorize a change of domicile of the hauling equipmen…
Authorities Cited
- Cent. Truck Lines, Inc. v. R.R. Comm'n of the State of Fla., 158 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1946)