Greyhound Corp., Southeastern Greyhound Lines Division v. Carter
| Decision Date | 21 October 1960 |
| Parties | GREYHOUND CORPORATION, SOUTHEASTERN GREYHOUND LINES DIVISION, Petitioner, v. Jerry W. CARTER, Alan S. Boyd and Wilbur C. King, as and constituting the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Wayne K. Ramsay and Milam, LeMaistre, Ramsay & Martin, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Lewis W. Petteway and Guyte P. McCord, Jr., Tallahassee, for Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission; A. Pickens Coles, Tampa, Clifford T. Inglis, Jacksonville, and Coles & Himes, Tampa, for Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., respondents.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Greyhound Corporation, Southeastern Greyhound Lines Division, to review order 4808 of the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, confirming cancellation and revocation, under Sec. 323.10 F.S.A., of a portion of Greyhound's certificate of convenience and necessity.
It is admitted that Greyhound ceased operating over the specific portion of its route, here involved, in 1948. Greyhound contends however, that it was granted a suspension by the Commission in conjunction with an approved schedule change. The Commission has no record of such suspension or approval, nor has Greyhound, but the latter contends it must have been granted because Greyhound would never have operated under a schedule which discontinued such portion of the route without commission approval. Obviously what Greyhound has done or would not have done cannot substitute for commission approval of route suspension for nearly 10 years. The Commission seems willing to concede that the schedule change was approved but rightly points out that the Commission would not necessarily be put on notice of the discontinuance unless it was called to its attention, and mere approval of a schedule change would not constitute permission to discontinue all service over a portion of the route. The Statute in effect in 1948 when the supposititious suspension was granted authorized the Commission to grant a 'temporary' suspension for good cause. There is no showing made that there was ever granted such a suspension, much less that it was granted for good cause. Futhermore, even if such a suspension were granted, and for good cause, a ten year discontinuance can hardly qualify under these facts as a 'temporary' suspension.
Greyhound also contends that the reissue of the certificate in March 1950 and March 1957 with these portions of the route still carried over from the former certificates somehow shows a consent by the Commission to a continuing suspension. One glance at the reissued certificates indicates that they are extraordinarily voluminous and it is not surprising that the Commission failed to note that service had been abandoned over a very small portion of the overall route. Even if the Commission had been derelict in failing to discover the failure to operate, Greyhound could not avail itself of the Commission's dereliction to excuse its own unauthorized abandonment. But supposing that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Mexico Elec. Service Co. v. Lea County Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...Chicago Railways Company v. Commerce Commission, 336 Ill. 51, 167 N.E. 840, 67 A.L.R. 938, and Greyhound Corporation, Southeastern Greyhound Lines Division v. Carter (Fla.1960) 123 So.2d 697, being cases holding certificates of convenience and necessity void upon failure to exercise them wi......
-
Van Arsdale v. King
...failure to operate are self-executing and are subject merely to the entry of a mandatory order confirming the same. Greyhound Corp. v. Carter et al., Fla., 123 So.2d 697. There was no reason to require the separate proceeding. The Commission has the power to investigate and decide the quest......
-
Austin Tupler Trucking, Inc. v. Hawkins, 55147
...that Eubanks was entitled to the 1974 dormancy hearing is untenable for yet another reason. In Greyhound Corp., Southeastern Greyhound Lines Div. v. Carter, 123 So.2d 697 (Fla.1960), we held that once dormancy is established, section 323.10(2) becomes self-executing and cancellation of the ......
-
Gray Line Tours of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Mason
...by records and testimony the continuity of bona fide service during the period in question.' See Greyhound Corp., Southeastern Greyhound Lines Division v. Carter, Fla., 123 So.2d 697. Van Arsdale v. King, supra, cannot be relied upon to grant a transfer of stock in instant case because the ......