Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 26 January 1920
• Citation: 79 Fla. 66,83 So. 708
• Parties: FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

83 So. 708

79 Fla. 66

FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

January 26, 1920

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, Judge.

Action by the State of Florida against the Florida East Coast Railway Company. Demurrer to original third and fourth counts sustained, and demurrer to amended third and fourth counts overruled, demurrers to pleas sustained, and final judgment rendered for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

See also, 82 So. 136, 139.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A state has power to impose penalties sufficiently heavy to secure obedience to orders of public utility commissions after they have been found lawful, or after the parties affected have had ample opportunity to test the validity of administrative orders and failed to do so.

A party affected by a statute passed without his having an opportunity to be heard is entitled to a safe and adequate judicial review of the legality thereof. It is a denial of due process of law if such review can be effected by appeal to the courts only at the risk of having to pay penalties so great that it is better to yield to orders of uncertain legality than to ask the protection of the law.

Rates rules, orders, and regulations made by the Railroad Commissioners, who are administrative officers, acting under statutory authority, are generally legislative in their nature, and have not the attributes of a final judgment or decree of a judicial tribunal; and those who are directly affected by such administrative rates, etc., are, under the due process of law clauses of the state and federal Constitutions, entitled to a judicial review of questions in good faith duly presented, challenging the validity of the administrative action taken as it affects private property rights.

Pending a judicial determination of the validity of the administrative rates, rules, orders, etc., which are only prima facie valid, the state may not impose such excessive penalties for noncompliance with the challenged rates, etc as will intimidate the parties complaining from contesting the validity of the rates, etc., in due course of judicial proceedings, since that would, in effect, be a denial of organic rights to equal protection of the laws, and to resort to the courts to finally establish the validity or invalidity of the rates, etc., whose legality are challenged.

The state Constitution forbids the imposition of excessive fines and also provides that the courts of the state shall be open so that for any injury there shall be a remedy by due course of law.

A statute should be construed and applied so as to make it accord with organic law, and the lawmaking power is held to have intended a valid enactment, and that a construction that avoids raising doubts as to the constitutionality of the statute should be applied.

In an action to recover fines imposed by the Railroad Commissioners, a plea that in effect avers that the alleged violation of rules of the Railroad Commissioners, for which large fines were imposed, were committed while the defendant was with due diligence contesting in the courts of the state the constitutional validity of one of the rules, and that in taking appropriate action to test the validity of such rule the alleged violations of another rule necessarily occurred, should not be stricken.

COUNSEL Brown, Twyman & Scott, of Miami, and Scott M. Loftin, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Dozier A. DeVane, of Tallahassee, for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

In this action brought under section 2908, General Statutes of 1906, as amended by section 12, c. 6527, Acts of 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, § 2908), to recover fines imposed by the Railroad Commissioners for violations of the Commissioners' rates, rules, and regulations by the defendant, the first and second counts of the declaration were abandoned.

The first count sought a recovery of a fine of $3,000 imposed by the Railroad Commissioners July 16, 1915, for violations of rule 19 in September and November, 1914; and the second count related to a fine of $1,000 for a violation of rule 19 on October 15, 1914, imposed October 30, 1916. Other counts as amended are:

'Third Count.

'The plaintiff aforesaid further sues the defendant aforesaid for that the defendant is and has been from a date prior to September 18, 1914, a railroad company and common carrier operating its line of railroad within the state of Florida, for the transportation of goods and passengers for hire, and running into and doing business in the county of Dade aforesaid; that prior to the 18th day of September, 1914, the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida had, pursuant to statute, adopted, promulgated, and prescribed certain rules and regulations for the government of the transportation of persons and property by the railroad companies and common carriers doing business wholly or in part within the state of Florida, and among other rules and regulations so adopted, promulgated, and prescribed was rule 7, of the 'General Rules,' which is as follows:

"Increased Rates.

"7. In no case shall any railroad or common carrier doing business wholly or in part within the state of Florida advance or increase any special rate, or other rates, demurrage charges, storage or wharfage charges, without first submitting the proposed increased rate or rates, demurrage, storage, or wharfage charges, to the Railroad Commissioners and receiving their approval.'

'That said rule 7 was in full force and effect on the 18th day of September, 1914, and has continued in full force and effect from thence hitherto.

'That on the 21st day of October, 1914, the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida charged the aforesaid defendant that the defendant did, in and by its Supplement No. 6 to Rate Issue 1135, issued September 18, 1914, effective September 18, 1914, advance and increase its joint rates on business destined to, or originating at, points on other lines in Florida, destined to, or originating at, Florida East Coast Railway stations, without first submitting the said proposed advance and increased rates to the said Railroad Commissioners, and without receiving their approval thereof; and the said Railroad Commissioners gave the said defendant more than ten days' notice that the said charge of violating or disregarding said rule No. 7 would be heard at their office in the city of Tallahassee, Fla., on the 12th day of November, 1914.

'That on, to wit, the 12th day of November, 1914, the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida did hold in their office in the city of Tallahassee, Fla., a meeting for the purpose of hearing and considering whether or not the said defendant, to wit, the Florida East Coast Railway Company, had violated said rule 7 by issuing on the 18th day of September, 1914, effective the 18th day of September, 1914, its Supplement No. 6 to Rate Issue 1135, in which supplement it did advance or increase its joint rates on business destined to, or originating at, points on other lines in Florida, destined to, or originating at, Florida East Coast Railway stations, without first submitting the said advance or increase to the said Railroad Commissioners, and without receiving their approval thereof.

'That afterwards, to wit, on the 16th day of July, 1915, the said Railroad Commissioners having, in accordance with law, duly tried the defendant, and the defendant, by its sworn answer, having admitted that it did advance or increase its joint rates on business destined to, or originating at, points on other lines in Florida, destined to, or originating at, Florida East Coast Railway stations, without first submitting the said proposed advance or increase to the said Railroad Commissioners, and without receiving their approval, as required by rule 7 of the General Rules, by their order duly entered adjudged the said defendant guilty of violating said rule 7, and, in accordance with law, the said Railroad Commissioners duly fixed and imposed upon the said defendant a penalty for such offense in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500), a copy of which order and judgment is hereto attached, and marked Exhibit C, and made a part hereof. And the said plaintiff alleges that by reason of the premises, and according to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, the said defendant became liable to pay to the State Treasurer of Florida, the sum of $2,500, with interest thereon from the 16th day of July, 1915. Yet the defendant has not paid the same nor any part thereof, but neglects and refuses so to do, to the damage of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claims fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

'C.

'Order No. 492, File No. 3726.

'Before the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida.

'In the Matter of the Violation of Rule 7 by the Florida East Coast Railway Company.

'Pursuant to Notice No. 61, dated October 21, 1914, this matter came on for consideration before the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida at their office in Tallahassee on November 12, 1914, and then and there appeared the Florida East Coast Railway Company, by Alexander St. Clair Abrams, its counsel. The said company filed its sworn answer in the said matter, admitting that it did issue Supplement No. 6 to Rate Issue 1135, issued September 18, 1914, effective September 18, 1914, as charged in said Notice No. 61, but setting forth its reasons for so doing and why it should not be penalized therefor. And after a full hearing the Commissioners took the matter under advisement.

'And now, on this day, the said matter coming on for further and final consideration, the Railroad Commissioners, being fully advised in the premises, do find that the

...