Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission
Citation | 118 Fla. 526,160 So. 22 |
Parties | CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, Inc. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION et al. |
Decision Date | 28 February 1935 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
En Banc.
Petition by Central Truck Lines, Incorporated, for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Railroad Commission granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to the receivers for the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company for operartion of motor vehicle common carrier service between Tampa and Brooksville and between Waldo and Morriston.
Certiorari denied.
COUNSEL Milam, McIlvaine & Milam, of Jacksonville, for relator.
W. J Oven and T. T. Turnbull, both of Tallahassee, for respondents.
Central Truck Lines, Inc., a corporation, has filed this petition for certiorari attacking as contrary to law an order entered by the Railroad Commission granting its approval to an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity sought by the Seaboard Air Line Railway, a rail carrier, for the purpose of enabling it to operate a daily motor vehicle common carrier service between Tampa and Brooksville and between Waldo and Morriston, conditioned that, when the business to be done by motor carrier so increases as to be profitable to transport by rail, the transportation in motor vehicles over the highways shall be abandoned and the rail service for which the highway transportation is thus substituted shall be resumed.
No writ of certiorari has been issued, but by special order of this court the merits of the cause have been orally argued, and all contentions of the respective parties fully presented in briefs filed in support of the pending application for such writ; so the proposition before us in whether or not the writ of certiorari shall issue and the order complained of be quashed thereon, or the proceeding dismissed for want of a substantial ground of invalidity appearing in the commission's order to which the pending application for certiorari relates.
The facts of this case as found by the Railroad Commission, and set forth in its order, are as follows:
A majority of the commission were of the opinion that the granting of the application would effect a considerable saving to the rail carrier in its operation of train service, that the railroad was badly in need of revenue, and that the authorization sought would, if approved by the commission, result in an expedited service of express and through freight that would be of benefit to the public. They were likewise of the opinion that the proposal to substitute truck service for rail service should only be permitted until business on the railroad so increased as to warrant a resumption of train service, in which event the truck service should be required to be abandoned. The commission's order was so framed as to thus express and condition the commission's approval of the application.
The Railroad Commission has been made the repository of a general grant of regulatory powers as to both rail and motor carrier services performed in the state of Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tamiami Trail Tours v. Carter
...under Chapter 323, Florida Statutes, 1953, F.S.A., as well as other orders of the Commission. See Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 118 Fla. 526, 160 So. 22; In re Edwards, 100 Fla. 989, 130 So. 615; Florida Motor Lines v. Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018, 132 So. 851; and Atlan......
-
Robinson v. Gallagher Transfer & Storage Co.
... ... revocation of the Public Service Commission's order which ... granted the application, the ... evidence. Vander Werf v. Railroad Comm. (S. D.) 237 ... N.W. 909; Stark Electric ... (Ohio) 161 N.E. 208; Central Truck Lines v. Railroad ... Commission (Fla.) ... In ... Egyptian Transp. System, Inc. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. et ... al., 321 Ill ... ...
-
Horluck Transp. Co. v. Eckright, 35159
...and that private interests are not served to the detriment of the public interest. See also Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission, et al., 1935, 118 Fla. 526, 160 So. 22; State ex rel. Kelley v. Ramsey, Our statute, RCW, chapter 81.68 (perhaps intentionally), offers few criteria ......
-
Stewart v. Mack
...The bedrock case defining the powers, duties and responsibilities of the respondent Commission is that of Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Commission, 118 Fla. 526, 160 So. 22, 23, and we deem it significant that its pertinent language should be quoted 'The Railroad Commission has been made ......