State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1907
• Citation: 44 So. 213,53 Fla. 650
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ELLIS, Atty. Gen. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

44 So. 213

53 Fla. 650

STATE ex rel. ELLIS, Atty. Gen. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

February 20, 1907

In Banc. Application by the state, on relation of W. H. Ellis Attorney General, for writ of mandamus to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Motion to quash granted on condition.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The common-law writ of mandamus may be issued to specifically enforce the performance of a duty imposed by law upon a railroad corporation, where no other adequate remedy is provided by law.

The writ of mandamus does not supersede legal remedies, but rather supplies the want of a legal remedy. Therefore two prerequisites must exist to warrant a court in granting this extraordinary remedy: First, it must appear that the relator has a clear, legal right to the performance of the particular duty by the respondent; and, second, that the law affords no other adequate or specific remedy to secure the performance of the duty which it is sought to coerce.

When a state confers upon a railroad corporation the rights of a common carrier, the law imposes upon such corporation the duty of providing all facilities, and of operating them so as to adequately meet all reasonable requirements of the service it engages to render. This duty is implied by law in conferring the franchise and privileges of a common carrier or in permitting their use, whether the provision of the grants be mandatory, or merely permissive; and the acceptance or exercise of the rights carries with it the duty of properly rendering the public service undertaken by virtue of the rights conferred or permitted to be exercised.

The power and duty of a state to require the property of a common carrier corporation devoted to the public service within its borders to be maintained in a reasonably safe and adequate condition, and to be properly operated for rendering the public service to which the property is devoted by its corporate owner, are inherent, and reserved in the state for the necessary protection and benefit of the lives and property within its territory.

Whether or not the property devoted by a common carrier railroad corporation to the public service which it is authorized to perform, is adequate, and is being operated in a reasonably safe and convenient manner for the proper rendering of such public service, may be determined by the courts when the question is duly presented by the state through its proper official representative; and, in determining the question any legal method of ascertaining the material and essential facts may be adopted which is best suited to the case.

In determining whether the roadbed, track, rolling stock, and other equipment of a common carrier railroad corporation is reasonably sufficient, and is being maintained and operated in a reasonably safe and adequate condition, and is being managed for the proper rendering of the public service that the corporation has undertaken to perform, the conditions under which the service is being rendered, the character and extent of the service, its reasonable requirements, and the means, facilities, and methods best suited to such service in common use, will be considered by the court, together with any other material and pertinent matters available.

The duty of providing a reasonably safe and sufficient roadbed track, equipment, and facilities, and of maintaining and operating the property in a proper condition for rendering safe, prompt, and adequate service, and of actually rendering to the public such service without unjust discrimination being required for the public good and contemplated by law and imposed upon a common carrier railraod corporation in permitting it to exercise the franchises and privileges of a common carrier, may be enforced by mandamus in a proper case upon the relation of the Attorney General, when no other adequate remedy is provided by law.

While a discretion is allowed a common carrier corporation in the means and manner of the discharge of the duties its owes to the public, such discretion must be exercised in good faith and with reasonable regard for the requirements of the public service. When all the necessary facilities are furnished, and operated so as to reasonably meet the just requirements of the public service, the law in that regard is satisfied.

The mandatory part of a writ of mandamus should conform to the allegations of the writ, and it should not, in general require more to be done than is justified by the allegations of the writ. Where the mandatory part of the writ, taken with its allegations, is not so definite and specific that its performance can be readily enforced by the court, a peremptory writ will not be issued.

When it is sought by mandamus to compel a railroad company to do any act in relation to the equipment and operation of its road, the courts, as a general rule, will not interfere, except where the act sought to be enforced is specific.

The roadbed and track of a railroad have the elements of stability, and it can be readily ascertained when they are put in the condition required by specific allegations and commands in mandamus proceedings. But in the nature of things there can be no fixed standard for the number of engines and cars that will be sufficient to move the traffic along the different lines of a railroad company, as the requirements of the service may greatly and rapidly fluctuate from time to time. A large discretion in such cases must be left to the management of the road and the supervision of the state tribunal charged with that duty.

The proceedings by mandamus can only be resorted to when there is no other adequate legal remedy to accomplish the purpose sought thereby.

When the court will not enforce the mandate of an alternative writ as it is framed, a peremptory writ will not issue thereon, since the writ must be enforced as a whole, if at all.

An alternative writ of mandamus may be amended.

COUNSEL W. H. Ellis, Atty. Gen., pro se.

W. E. Kay, Jno. E. Hartridge, R. A. Burford, and Sparkman & Carter, for respondent. The alternative writ issued in this case January 11, 1907, upon a petition filed by the Attorney General, is as follows:

'The State of Florida to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company:

'Whereas, by a petition filed in this court in the name of the state of Florida, upon the relation of W. H. Ellis, as Attorney General of said state, it has been made to appear:

'(1) That the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company is a railroad corporation doing business under the laws of the state of Florida, in said state, and is in possession of, controls, and pretends to operate certain lines of railroad lying wholly in the state of Florila, to wit: A line of railroad from Palatka, in Putnam county, to Rochelle, in Alachua county, thence to Ocala, in Marion county, thence to Leesburg, in Lake county, and to Brooksville, in Hernando county, and from Croom, in Hernando county, to St. Petersburg, in Hillsborough county, and from Bartow, in Polk county, to Punta Gorda, in De Soto county; also a line of railroad from Ocala, in Marion county, via Dunnellon, in said county, to Gulf Junction, in Citrus county, and from thence to Homosassa, in said county, and from Gulf Junction, in Citrus county, to Croom, in Hernando county, and from Trilby, in Pasco county, to Bartow, in Polk county.

'(2) That the line of railroad aforesaid, from Palatka to Rochelle, thence to Ocala, thence to Leesburg and Brooksville, and from Bartow to Punta Gorda, was constructed and built under and by virtue of a charter granted by the state of Florida to the Gainesville, Ocala & Charlotte Harbor Railroad Company, to which said railroad company the state of Florida by chapter 3167 of the Laws of 1879, approved March 4, 1879, granted large donations of land belonging to the state of Florida to aid in the construction of the lines of railroad of said corporation. The said railroad corporation received from the state of Florida, pursuant to said land grant, two million six hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and sixty-two and forty-five one-hundredths (2,622,362.45) acres of land.

'(3) That the line of railroad aforesaid, beginning at Ocala, in Marion county, and running, via Dunnellon and Gulf Junction, to Homosassa, in Citrus county, and from Gulf Junction to Inverness, in said county, was constructed and built under and by virtue of a charter granted by the state of Florida to the Silver Springs, Ocala & Gulf Railroad Company, to which said railroad company the state of Florida by chapter 3170 of the Laws of 1879, approved March 12, 1879, granted large donations of land belonging to the state of Florida to aid in the construction of the lines of railroad of said corporation. The said railroad corporation received from the state of Florida, pursuant to said land grant, three hundred and thirty-nine thousand eight hundred and seven and fourteen one-hundredths (339,807.14) acres of land.

'(4) That the line of railroad aforesaid, from Inverness, in Citrus county, to Croom in Hernando county, and thence to Trilby, in Pasco county, and thence to Bartow, in Polk county, was constructed and built under and by virtue of a charter granted by the state of Florida to the South Florida Railroad Company, to which said railroad company the state of Florida, by chapter 3491 of the Laws of 1883, approved March 5, 1883, granted large donations of land belonging to the state of Florida to aid in the construction of the lines of railroad of said corporation. The said railroad corporation received from the state of Florida, pursuant to said land grant, sixty-five thousand one hundred and ninety-two and seven one-hundredths (65,192.07) acres of land.

'(5) That the line of

...