State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1911 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. RAILROAD COM'RS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Railroad Commissioners against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Motion to quash alternative writ overruled.
Syllabus by the Court
The Railroad Commissioners have such powers only as are expressly or impliedly conferred upon them by statute.
Authority that is indispensable or useful to the valid purposes of a remedial law may be inferred or implied from authority expressly given.
Where lawful authority to the Railroad Commissioners is clearly conferred or fairly implied, and it is consistent with the general statutory duties of the commissioners, a wide discretion is accorded to them in the exercise of such authority.
The right of the state to regulate the transportation by common carriers within the state extends to every phase of the service and to every act of the carrier that affects the service.
The statutes of this state authorize the Railroad Commissioners to require railroad companies to make written application to the commission for their consent to discontinue running any regular train carrying passengers between points wholly within this state.
The authority of the Railroad Commissioners is to supervise and regulate the duties of railroads to the public, and not to arbitrarily control and manage the property of railroad companies.
While the initial discretion as to the operation of trains is in those charged with the management of the railroad operations such discretion is subject to lawful governmental regulation.
The burden of just and reasonable regulation is under the law an incident to the service undertaken by the common carrier, and such burden is not a denial or deprivation of property rights secured by the state and federal Constitutions.
The provision of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, does not restrain the normal exercise of state authority, but only the abuse of such authority.
A wide scope of discretion is accorded to the state in selecting the subjects of regulation and in classifying the persons affected by a regulation; the limitations imposed by the equal protection of the laws clause of the federal Constitution being only that such classifications shall have some practical relation to actual conditions, and shall not be a palpably unjust discrimination or merely arbitrary.
The provision of passenger rule 12, requiring written application to be made to the Railroad Commissioners before any regular train carrying passengers between points wholly within this state is discontinued, imposes a continuing specific duty on railroad companies in this state; and, being lawfully imposed, such continuing duty may be enforced by mandamus where it has been violated, and is disregarded, and its binding effect is challenged by a railroad company subject to the regulation, and it appears that the enforcement of the regulation is just and practicable within lawful limitations.
Where an alternative writ of mandamus alleges that the respondent has violated the provision of a rule of the Railroad Commissioners, by discontinuing some of its trains without applying for consent, that the respondent reglects and refuses to apply for consent, and denies the validity of the rule, a present disregard of a specific duty enforceable by mandamus is shown, and such allegations are not too general or uncertain to form the basis for mandamus.
COUNSEL L. C. Massey, for relators.
W. E Kay, for respondent. The alternative writ of mandamus issued by this court is:
'That at the hearing aforesaid held on November 10, 1908, all the railroad corporations in the state, including the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, had an opportunity for a just and fair hearing on the adoption of the said proposed rule 12 before the commissioners, and some of them, including the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, availed themselves of the opportunity and were heard thereon.
'At the time of prescribing the said rule 12 the said Railroad Commissioners ordered that it should take effect on January 1, 1909 and the said Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company had due notice of the adoption of the said rule, and of the time at which it should take effect.
'(4) That since the said rule 12 took effect the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company has discontinued some of its regular trains carrying passengers and running wholly within this state, without the consent of the Railroad Commissioners previously obtained, and without making any application for such consent, but neglects and refuses to obtain such consent or to make application therefor, and denies the right of the Railroad Commissioners to prescribe the said rule 12. That the regular passenger trains which the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company has thus discontinued without consent as aforesaid were not passenger trains put on for special occasions, such as fairs, carnivals, conventions, excursions, and the like, which are excepted from the operation of the rule.
'(5) That the Railroad Commissioners of this state and the people of this state are entirely without adequate remedy in the premises, unless it be afforded them by the interposition of this honorable court through a writ of mandamus.
'Now, therefore, we being willing that full and speedy justice be done in the premises, do command you, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, forthwith to observe the provisions and requirements of rule 12 of the rules governing the transportation of passengers prescribed by our Railroad Commissioners, as follows:
'So far as you are required thereby to make written application to the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida for their consent to discontinue running any regular train carrying passengers, either wholly or in part, at least 10 days before the date for the proposed discontinuance, unless the said Railroad Commissioners in their discretion shorten the time of application for good cause shown, except in the case of discontinuing a passenger train or trains put on for special occasions, such as fairs, carnivals, conventions, excursions, and the like.
'Or that you appear before the justices of our Supreme Court at the courtroom in the city of Tallahassee on the 25th day of October, A. D. 1910, at 10 o'clock a. m. of that day, and show cause why you refuse so to do; and have you then and there this writ.'
A motion to quash the alternative writ was made as follows:
'Comes now the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and moves to quash the alternative writ in said cause upon the following grounds:
'As to the form of the writ:
'(1) Because the matter involved in the alternative writ is a moot question, and not of sufficient importance to justify the issuance of a peremptory writ.
'(2) Because the writ of mandamus does not lie to compel the doing of something that may or may not be done in the future, and cannot be used as a preventive writ.
'(3) Because the alternative writ does not specify any particular violation of rule 12, in that it does not show that respondent has taken off any particular train or trains without notice to the commissioners, or that it intends so to do in the future.
'(4) Because the performance sought to be enforced is not specific, in that there is no particular violation or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Harris
... ... state of Florida,' or in 'the rivers, creeks, bays, ... bayous, or other waters on the coast of the state of ... Florida,' are general laws, though such waters do not ... exist universally ... lower or, ... [163 So. 242] ... if advisable later, raise the population dividing line ... between the two classes ... The ... principal provisions of chapter 16058 relate ... ...
-
Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
...is a tribunal unknown to the common law, and possesses only such powers as are conferred upon it by statute. State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 60 Fla. 465, 54 South. 394; Wabash R. Co. v. Com'rs (Ind.) 95 N. E. 673, and cases cited; Railroad Com'rs v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 17 Or. 65, 19 Pa......
-
State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.
... ... Jacksonville, Fla., to and from which all passenger trains of ... the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and Seaboard Air ... Line Railway Company, Florida East Coast ... ...
-
Waybright v. Duval County
... ... it in favor of its constitutionality. Atlantic Coast Line ... R. Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 So. 377, 20 Ann.Cas ... According to the Last Florida State Census, or Any Subsequent ... State or Federal Census'. The words quoted ... ...