State v. Florida Coast Line Canal & Transportation Co.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1917
• Citation: 75 So. 582,73 Fla. 1006
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WEST, Atty. Gen. v. FLORIDA COAST LINE CANAL & TRANSPORTATION CO.

75 So. 582

73 Fla. 1006

STATE ex rel. WEST, Atty. Gen. v. FLORIDA COAST LINE CANAL & TRANSPORTATION CO.

Florida Supreme Court

May 10, 1917

On an application by the State, on relation of Thomas F. West Attorney General, for a writ of mandamus to the Florida Coast Line Canal & Transportation Company. Motion to quash granted on condition.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A canal for public use, constructed and operated by a corporation authorized by its charter or by the statutes of the state to charge tolls for the use of its canal, to construct and operate the same as a part of the navigable waters of the state, receiving grants of land from the state to aid it in effecting the public purposes of its formation, with the right of eminent domain, is a navigable public highway for the transportation of persons and property.

A canal forming a navigable public highway is subject to the right and duty of the government to regulate it in a proper manner.

The duties of a canal company to construct and maintain its canal, forming a navigable highway, may arise either from express statutory requirements or by implication of law from authorith permitting the use of the special franchises and privileges granted to, and exercised by, such a company, and the undertaking to serve the public; and the acceptance or exercise of the rights carries with it the duty of properly rendering the public service undertaken.

After a canal company has elected to proceed and exercise special rights, privileges, and franchises delegated to it by the sovereign power, by constructing its canal, operating it for public use, accepting large grants of land from the state to aid it in effecting the public purposes and objects of its formation, then the duty of keeping and maintaining its canal and waterways in an adequate and proper manner attaches, from the performance of which it cannot be released except by due process of law.

A canal, constituting a navigable public highway, thrown open for navigation to all upon the payment of a fixed toll should be available at all reasonable times for public use with safety and convenience.

The existence and extent of a chartered canal company's privileges and franchises and of its resultant duties and obligations must be determined by reference to the particular law or charter creating it and such valid statutory provisions as may relate thereto.

A canal company, owning and operating a canal, forming a navigable public highway devoted to public service, and exercising special rights, privileges, and franchises delegated to it by the sovereign power, is charged with the duty of exercising ordinary and reasonable care to maintain the canal and waterways operated and controlled by it according to the dimensions and of the capacity required by its charter and the statutes of the state, prescribing particular specifications, applicable thereto; and the performance of such duty may be enforced by mandamus in a proper case, upon the relation of the Attorney General, when the allegations of the alternative writ are sufficiently specific and there is no other adequate remedy afforded by law.

The ordinary office of the writ of mandamus is to coerce the performance of single acts of specific and imperative duty. The court will not undertake to compel the performance of a series of continuous acts where it is impossible for it to furnish that superintendence, without which its mandate becomes nugatory.

The commands of a peremptory writ of mandamus must strictly follow and conform to those of the alternative writ, and unless they do so, such peremptory writ will be refused.

When a peremptory writ of mandamus is issued, it is to be obeyed and a certificate showing obedience is required to be made by respondent and filed in the cause.

Great care, particularity, and certainty are required in the preparation of the mandatory part of the alternative writ of mandamus. It should conform to the recitals in the writ, and must not require more to be done than is justified by such recitals.

General allegations in the recitals of an alternative writ of mandamus alleging that respondent has failed to maintain its canal and waterways according to certain prescribed specifications and as required by law, are limited by the particular defaults alleged as existing at and between definite points along said waterways, as when both general and special allegations are made in the same pleading respecting the same subject-matter, the latter control.

When the allegations in the recitals of an alternative writ of mandamus as to a specific default and breach of duty are confined to designated parts only of such waterway, and the mandatory part of such writ applies to the waterway as a whole, such writ is defective in that its mandatory part requires more to be done than is justified by its recitals.

Questions not properly raised or presented by the pleadings will not be considered or determined by the court on a motion to quash an alternative writ of mandamus.

The range of action required of the respondent by an alternative writ of mandamus should be clearly, particularly, and specifically set forth in the mandatory part of such writ. The duty commanded should not be left to indiscriminate or indefinite outside ascertainment dehors the writ.

The alternative writ in mandamus proceedings stands as the pleading on the part of the relator, and, if too much is asked, respondent may show this as a sufficient cause for not complying with the mandate of the writ.

The mandatory part of the writ of mandamus must be enforced in its entirety, and when a motion to quash the alternative writ is made, and it appears from the face of such writ that relator is not entitled to have the order enforced as a whole, the motion to quash should be granted, with leave to relator to amend such writ, if he shall be so advised.

COUNSEL T. F. West, Atty. Gen., for relator

C. M Cooper, of Jacksonville, for respondent

The alternative writ issued in this case, January 31, 1917, is as follows:

'The State of Florida to Florida Coast Line Canal & Transportation Company--Greeting:

'Whereas, by petition filed in this our Supreme Court of the state of Florida, wherein the state of Florida upon the relation of Thomas F. West as Attorney General, who sues for the state of Florida, and for the people of the state of Florida, is the relator and Florida Coast Line Canal & Transportation Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Florida, is respondent, it has been made to appear:

'That the relator, Thomas F. West, is the duly elected, commissioned and acting Attorney General of the state of Florida, and the respondent, Florida Coast Line Canal & Transportation Company, is a corporation, organized as a canal and transportation company under the laws of the state of Florida and particularly chapter 1987 of the Acts of 1874 entitled 'An act to provide a general law for the incorporation of railroads and canals,' as amended by chapter 3166 of the Acts of 1879, Laws of Florida, by which amendment aid from the state in the way of grants of land was authorized and given to railroad and canal companies incorporated under said act, copies of the articles of association of said respondent corporation with the amendments thereto on file in the office of the secretary of state being hereto attached marked Exhibits A1, A2, A3, and A4, and made a part hereof.

'II. That respondent owns and pretends to maintain for public use in the carrying of passengers and property by vessel and other water craft a certain canal composed of artificial and natural waterways paralleling the east coast of Florida and lying wholly within the state of Florida and extending from the St. Johns river on the north, beginning at the point where Pablo creek enters the St. Johns river, thence in a southerly direction by canal to North river, thus connecting the navigable waters of St. Johns river with the navigable waters of North river; thence in a southerly direction through North river into Matanzas river; thence through Matanzas river and in a southerly direction by canal from Matanzas river into and through Smith's creek and Halifax creek to Halifax river, thus connecting the navigable waters of Matanzas river with the navigable waters of Halifax river; thence in a southerly direction through Halifax river and various canals, cuts and excavations into the navigable waters of Mosquito lagoon, thus connecting the navigable waters of Halifax river with the navigable waters of Mosquito lagoon; thence in a southerly direction through Mosquito lagoon to the narrow strip of land separating Mosquito lagoon from Indian river; thence by canal through said strip of land into the waters of Indian river, thus connecting the navigable waters of Mosquito lagoon with the navigable waters of Indian river; thence in a southerly direction through the Indian river by various excavations, cuts and canals into Peck Lake; thence in a southerly direction through Peck Lake, South Jupiter Narrows, Hobes Sound, Jupiter Sound, Lake Worth creek and various excavations, cuts and canals into Lake Worth, thus connecting the navigable waters of Indian river with the navigable waters of Lake Worth; thence in a southerly direction through Lake Worth to its southern shore; thence in a southerly direction from Lake Worth by canal into and through Hillsborough river, Lake Mabel, and various excavations, cuts and canals into Biscayne Bay, thus connecting the navigable waters of Lake Worth with the navigable waters of Biscayne Bay thereby providing and affording a navigable inland waterway from Jacksonville to Miami, the location of said canal and waterway being indicated generally by a dotted line

...