King Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
Decision Date | 12 October 1909 |
Citation | 58 Fla. 292,50 So. 509 |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Parties | KING LUMBER & MFG. CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
On Rehearing, November 2, 1909.
Error to Circuit Court, De Soto County; J. B. Wall, Judge.
Action by the King Lumber & Manufacturing Company against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Syllabus by the Court
The constitutional right of 'acquiring, possessing, and protecting property' is not infringed by valid governmental regulations of the use of property employed in rendering a public service. Nor are the burdens of valid regulations that affect such property a taking or depriving of property without due process of law, or a denial of the equal protection of the laws.
The Legislature has full power to pass laws regulating the intrastate business of common carriers, and, when statutes providing such regulations do not violate some provision or principle of constitutional law governing the subject, the legislative will as expressed in a duly enacted statute should be enforced.
The rule requiring classifications made by statutes to be reasonable has reference to those who are affected by a regulation, and not merely to the subject regulated.
Where a regulation affects alike all similarly situated with reference to the subject regulated, a wide discretion is accorded to the Legislature in selecting subjects for regulation. A subject of legislative regulation may be comprehensive or restrictive, where constitutional provisions are not violated.
Sections 2864, 2865, 2866, Gen. St. 1906, regulating the transportation by a carrier of lumber or timber on 'cars belonging to such carrier,' do not deny to the carrier the constitutional right of 'acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,' nor do they amount to a taking or a deprivation of property without due process of law, do not appear to be unreasonable and arbitrary in the classification of persons affected by the regulation, so as to deny to the carrier the equal protection of the laws, and do not constitute a burden upon interstate commerce.
COUNSEL W. E. Leitner, for plaintiff in error.
Sparkman & Carter, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error brought an action against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to recover the amounts fixed by the statute for the failure of the railroad company to equip its flat cars 'with all proper and sufficient standards supports, stays, strips, railing and other equipments and appliances necessary to hold and keep' lumber or timber being transported firmly in place. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and, as the plaintiff declined to plead further, final judgment was entered for the defendant. On writ of error the order sustaining the demurrer to the declaration and giving judgment for the defendant is urged as error.
The grounds of the demurrer to the declaration are in effect that the statute denies to the defendant the right of 'acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,' and is a taking or deprivation of the defendant's property without due process of law; that the statute is unreasonable and arbitrary in its classification, and therefore denies to the defendant the equal protection of the laws; that the statute constitutes a burden upon interstate commerce.
The statute, first enacted in 1903, now appears as sections 2864, 2865, and 2866 of the General Statutes of 1906:
The constitutional right of 'acquiring, possessing, and protecting property' is not infringed by valid governmental regulations of the use of property employed in rendering a public service. Nor are the burdens of valid regulations that affect such property a taking or depriving of property without due process of law, or a denial of the equal protection of the laws. State v. Florida East Coast Railway, 57 Fla. 522, 49 So. 43.
The Legislature has full power to pass laws regulating the intrastate business of common carriers, and, when statutes providing such regulations do not violate some provision or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marasso v. Van Pelt
... ... Co. v. Priest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 So. 282; King Lumber ... & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... ...
-
Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest
... ... 42, 58 L.Ed. 168; Southern R. Co. v. King, ... 217 U.S. 524, 30 S.Ct. 594, 54 L.Ed. 868; ... Legislature. See King Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast ... Line R. Co., 58 ... ...
-
Clark v. State
... ... King v ... A. C. L. R. Co., 58 Fla. 292, 505 So ... cites only one case, Cicero Lumber Co. v. Town of ... Cicero, 176 Ill. 9, 51 N.E ... ...
-
Davis v. Florida Power Co.
... ... Ozan Lumber ... Co. v. Union County Nat. Bk., 207 U.S. 251, ... State v. Atlantic Coast ... Line R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969, ... See Red 'C.' [64 Fla. 269] ... Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture of N. C., 222 U.S ... 28, 32 S.Ct. 13, 56 L.Ed. 75; ... King Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... ...