Central Truck Lines v. Railroad Com'n of Fla.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1946
• Citation: 158 Fla. 68,27 So.2d 658
• Parties: CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, Inc., et al. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF FLORIDA et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

27 So.2d 658

158 Fla. 68

CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, Inc., et al. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF FLORIDA et al.

Florida Supreme Court

October 25, 1946

Rehearing Denied Nov. 6, 1946.

John M. Allison, of Tampa, for petitioners.

Lewis W. Petteway of Tallahassee for respondent Florida Railroad Commission.

A. Pickens Coles of Tallahassee, for respondent Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.

THOMAS, Justice.

This caue reaches us on petition for certiorari to review an order of the Railroad Commission (No. 1884) granting Tamiami Trail Tours Inc., permission to furnish through freight service between Jacksonville and Miami.

To determine the controversy it will be necessary for us first to give briefly the history of the operations of petitioners, Central Truck Lines, inc., an Great Southern Trucking Company, respondent Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., also St. Johns River Line Company and to refer to a previous order of the commission (No. 1831).

Under authority of the Railroad Commission the petitioners operate trucks for the carriage of freight between Jacksonville and Miami over U. S. Highway No. 1, which skirts along the east coast of the state. St. Johns River Line Company originally operated trucks between Jacksonville and St. Cloud via Orlando, while Tamiami Trail Tours, Icn., has been for some time carrying freight between St. Cloud and Miami via the Lake Region.

Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., negotiated for the purchase of the 'certificated rights' of St. Johns River Line Company, and in accordance with the statute, Section 323.03(5), and F.S.A., these two companies jointly petitioned the Railroad Commission to sanction the transfer. Apparently the next step in the proceedings was service of notice by the secretary of the Railroad Commission that on January 24, 1946, a hearing would be held at Tampa to consider this joint application. At the place nd time appointed testimony was introduced before the commission and all the corporations to which we have referred were present by counsel.

We pause now to observe that it must have been apprehended by the Railroad Commission as well as by the present petitioners that the matter immediately to be considered by the Railroad Commission was the transfer itself and the attendant question of imposing restrictions to safeguard or improve facilities in the interest of the public, Sec. 323.03(5) Florida Statutes 1941, and F.S.A. while the proposition potentially to be decided was the effect of the transfer upon petitioners, if from the consolidation of routes through service should be inaugurated between Jacksonville and Miami in competition with petitioners.

That this situation was contemplated by the parties, as well as the commissioners, is plain to us from the recitals in the order (No. 1831), entered pursuant to the hearing in Tampa, which we now propose to give in detail. After statement of appearances of counsel there appears the recital that the applicants sought 'to secure the * * * approval of the transfer of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 80, together with all extensions thereto, from St. Johns River Line Co. to Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.' Immediately following is the recital that the 'protestants,' petitioners in the present proceeding, objected to the transfer unless restrictions were imposed on the transferee precluding inauguration of a through service from Jacksonville to Miami 'over the combined operations of St. Johns River Line Co. and Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.' Then, as if to emphasize the limited purpose of the hearing, the commission found, as a matter of law, citing University City Transfer Co. v. Florida Railroad Commission, 124 Fla. 308, 168 So. 413, that where a certificate attempted to be assigned had not been revoked it was not necessary for the transferee to establish to the satisfaction of the Railroad...