King Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Decision Date12 October 1909
Citation58 Fla. 292,50 So. 509
CourtFlorida Supreme Court
PartiesKING 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

SYLLABUS

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.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C.J.

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:

'2864. Must Provide Flat Cars with Suitable Appliances for Hauling Lumber, etc.--It shall be the duty of every railway company or other person engaged in the business of carrying for hire in this state to efficiently and suitably equip and supply every and all flat cars and cars belonging to such carrier, and which may be furnished on which to load any cargo of lumber or timber with all proper and sufficient standards, supports, stays, strips, railing, and other equipments and appliances necessary to hold and keep the cargo firmly in place.
'2865. Appliances Weighed as Part of Cars.--The standards, supports, stays, strips, railings, equipments, appliances, contrivances, etc., provided for in the preceding section shall constitute and be held and considered part and parcel of said cars and the weight of the same shall be added to the weight of the car and shall be deducted from the weight of the cargo of lumber and timber shipped, so that the freight charges shall be charged by the carriers only on the cargo.

'2866. Penalty for Not Providing Appliances.--Whenever any such carrier shall fail in the duty imposed upon it, in respect of its said cars in the two preceding sections, and the unsupplied standards, supports, strips, and other proper equipments shall be provided by the shipper, it shall be and is hereby made the duty of such carrier owning car, to pay the shipper one and one-half dollars for each and every car to which it may be necessary for said shipper to supply or provide any such standard, support, strips or other equipments, as compensation to the said shipper for the same, payment of which said sum shall be made by said carrier to said shipper upon demand of said shipper made upon any agent of said carrier, and said shipper shall have a lien therefor on said car.'

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
19 cases
  • Marasso v. Van Pelt
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1919
    ... ... Co. v. Priest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 So. 282; King Lumber ... & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... ...
  • Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1914
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1934
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1913
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT