Matthews v. State Ex Rel. St. Andrews Bay Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 August 1933 |
| Citation | 111 Fla. 587,149 So. 648 |
| Parties | MATTHEWS et al. v. STATE ex rel. ST. ANDREWS BAY TRANSP. CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1933.
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Leon County; J. B. Johnson, Judge.
Application by the State, on the relation of the St. Andrews Bay Transportation Company, for a writ of prohibition against Eugene S. Mathews and others, as and constituting the Railroad Commission of the State, and another. To review a judgment awarding a peremptory writ, respondents bring error.
Reversed with directions.
COUNSEL Waller & Pepper and T. T. Turnbull, all of Tallahassee, for plaintiffs in error.
Arthur G. Powell, of Atlanta, Ga., and W. J. Oven, of Tallahassee for defendant in error.
Section 3 of chapter 14764, Acts of 1931, Laws of Florida, provides that: 'When any application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity has been heard by the Railroad Commission and denied, the Commission shall not entertain any further application covering the identical or similar routes schedules and/or service until the expiration of six months from the date of such denial.'
Relying upon the above section of the statutes, the defendant in error, St. Andrews Bay Transportation Company, obtained from the circuit court of Leon county a peremptory writ of prohibition against the Florida railroad commission and Union Bus Company, prohibiting the railroad commission from further considering an application of the Union Bus Company to engage as a common carrier of passengers and light express, for compensation, in motor vehicles, exclusively in interstate commerce between Marianna, Fla., and Dothan, Ala., and return, two schedules a day each way.
The record shows that after a public hearing pursuant to chapter 14764, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, and the taking of testimony, the railroad commission denied an application by the Union Bus Company for permission to extend its interstate carriage of passengers and light express for compensation in motorbusses from Marianna, Fla., on to Dothan, Ala., and return two schedules each way per day. The ground of the denial was that the application then considered did not appear to be exclusively an interstate application which by the authority of the rules of the railroad commission would be granted as a matter of course by the commission, in view of which the railroad commission held that, before such a certificate as then applied for could be granted, the question of public convenience and necessity for extended intrastate service would have to be inquired into and determined.
Thereafter the Union Bus Company applied to the federal courts for a preliminary injunction against the railroad commission preventing them from interfering with the proposed operation embraced in the denied certificate. The federal court subsequently dismissed the bill on the ground that the decision of the question should first be sought in the tribunals of the state. Thereupon the Union Bus Company filed with the railroad commission an application for leave to amend its original application so as to show that the service proposed would be entirely interstate, would be conducted in one vehicle which would traverse only the highway between Marianna, Fla., and Dothan, Ala., and would not participate in any manner in the intrastate business of the applicant east of Marianna in Florida, or elsewhere in Florida, and that such vehicle as would be operated would be of a different weight and character.
The railroad commission granted the application for the amendment. Whereupon the amended application was set down by the railroad commission for a public hearing. At the public hearing fixed by the railroad commission, St Andrews Bay Transportation Company, a competing carrier engaged in interstate commerce, as well as intrastate commerce, between Marianna, Fla., and Dothan, Ala., appeared and objected to the consideration of the Union Bus Company's ammended application on the ground that it was within the purview of section 3 of the statute above referred to, which prohibited the railroad commission from entertaining any further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
...of Public Works, 130 Wash. 620, 228 Pac. 1022; Boston & Worcester Railroad Corp. v. Western Railroad Corp., 14 Gray, 253; Matthews v. State, 149 So. 648. Under Missouri laws, the Superintendent of the Insurance Department is an entity distinct from the State, with power to sue and be sued. ......
-
American Constitution Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley
... ... is not the test. State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, 334 ... Mo. 713, 67 S.W.2d 981; ... v. Western Railroad ... Corp., 14 Gray, 253; Matthews v. State, 149 So ... 648. Under Missouri laws, the ... ...
-
Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co.
...the substantiality of the changes, if any, in the application and circumstances. Neither Matthews v. State ex rel. St. Andrews Bay Transportation Company, 111 Fla. 587, 149 So. 648 (1933), nor Dade County v. Mitchell, 188 So.2d 359 (Fla.3d DCA 1966), upon which Babcock relies, compels a dif......
-
Thomson v. State, Dept. of Environmental Regulation
...when the latter is accompanied by new facts, changed conditions, or additional submissions. Matthews v. State ex rel St. Andrews Bay Transport Co., 149 So. 648, 649, 111 Fla. 587 (1933); Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc., 410 So.2d at 654. Res judicata is said to be a "rule of expediency, justice,......