St. Joseph Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Southeastern Telephone Co.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1941
• Citation: 5 So.2d 55,149 Fla. 14
• Parties: ST. JOSEPH TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. SOUTHEASTERN TELEPHONE CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

5 So.2d 55

149 Fla. 14

ST. JOSEPH TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. SOUTHEASTERN TELEPHONE CO.

Florida Supreme Court

December 12, 1941

H. H. Wells and Weldon G. Starry, both of Tallahassee for petitioner.

W. J. Oven and W. J. Oven, Jr., both of Tallahassee, for respondent.

WHITFIELD, Justice.

In a suit brought by the Southeastern Telephone Company, it was in effect prayed that further construction of the poles and lines of the proposed telephone line of defendant, St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Company, be enjoined and restrained until some short day upon which a hearing can be set for the equities of this cause to be determined; that on final hearing the court will decree that defendant be permanently enjoined from constructing any telephone line into the territory now being served by plaintiff and in any territory whatsoever not authorized by law under the charter issued by the State of Florida to defendant, it being in effect alleged that defendant, St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Company has no charter power under the laws of Florida to construct maintain and/or operate a telephone line between the points and places sought or anywhere else in Leon or Wakulla counties, Florida, and that defendant has begun the erection of poles from a Wakulla county point towards Tallahassee in Leon county, Florida.

The circuit judge on May 24, 1941, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, its attorneys, agents and servants be and are severally enjoined and restrained from further proceeding with the construction of said telephone line or any part thereof in Leon or Wakulla counties until a further hearing in this cause. On May 27 1941, the court continued the restraining order in full force and effect until further order of the court. A motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and to dismiss the bill of complaint on grounds going essentially to the equity of the bill, and not specifically to the right of the plaintiff to maintain this suit, was denied May 31, 1941.

Later defendants moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order and to dismiss the bill of complaint upon grounds previously presented and also upon additional grounds: (1) Plaintiff does not show any specific right in itself to the relief sought; (2) injunction is not the proper remedy; (3) plaintiff is not a proper plaintiff to bring this suit; (4) plaintiff does not show any clear legal right to the relief sought. On June 13, 1941, the court decreed that said motion be denied.

Defendant entered an appeal from the three orders or decrees of May 24, May 31, and June 13, 1941.

Upon filing the record and briefs and oral argument on the merits in this court, application was made for an interlocutory writ of certiorari under Rule 34 to review the three orders last above referred to.

The four questions for discussion stated by the petitioner under the rules are:

'Does a public service corporation, with a franchise to do business in a certain locality, but not an exclusive franchise, have the right to question by injunction the extent of corporate power of another public service corporation, with a franchise to do the same kind of business, solely for the purpose of keeping down competition?'

'Should a chancellor grant an injunction without notice, stopping a great number of men from work, where the relator does not have a clear legal right to the relief sought, and no irreparable injury therefore can result if the injunction is not granted?'

'Is a public service corporation, with a franchise from the State, to operate a telephone company in the State, limited in its operations, to the counties specifically named in its charters as the counties in which it expects to do business?'

'Does the Circuit Court have jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order stopping the extension of a telephone line of a public service corporation, which holds a franchise from the State, prior to some action having been taken by the Railroad Commission?'

Respondent states two questions:

'Can a court of equity in the State of Florida enjoin the construction of a telephone line in competition with another telephone line where the first mentioned telephone line had no franchise or authority to do business in a locality, or localities, county or counties, as to which the second company seeks injunctive relief because of the fact that it has an established going concern under franchise rights serving the localities sought to be served by the second company?'

'Where a telephone company has been established for some thirty years or more, serving localities for such period of time, will a court of equity permit on the application of the first mentioned company the second company to parallel its line and thereby cause it a loss and possibly a loss of service to the public generally in the communities being served by the first company, the second company at the time having no legal right under the statute to construct said line or to enter into competition with the first mentioned company?'

Under the law and practice in Florida, the State may invoke appropriate judicial remedies for an abuse or violation of corporate or franchise authority that is conferred pursuant to State law; but private parties or corporations may not invoke judicial remedies for an abuse of, or a violation of, corporate or franchise authority conferred by the State. See Hitchcolk v. Mortgage Securities Corp., headnote 15, 95 Fla. 147, 116 So. 244; Vol. 10 Fletcher's Cyclopedia of Corporations, secs. 4854 et seq.

Where private property rights are violated by a private corporation, private parties or corporations may in general invoke appropriate judicial remedies against such corporation, upon proper and sufficient allegations and proof without raising the question of a wrong to State sovereignty. See Vol. 10, Fletcher's Cyclopedia of Corporations, sec. 4856 et seq.; 19 C.J.S., Corporations, p. 441, § 981; 13 Am.Jur. 790 et seq., secs. 759, 764 et seq.

In Seattle Gas & Electric Co. v. Citizens' Light & Power Co C.C., 123 F. 588, plaintiff...