State v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1915
• Citation: 69 Fla. 473,68 So. 727
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RAILROAD COM'RS v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO.

68 So. 727

69 Fla. 473

STATE ex rel. RAILROAD COM'RS v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

April 20, 1915

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1915.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Railroad Commissioners against the Florida East Coast Railway Company. Ordered that peremptory writ issue.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The evidence does not sustain an averment that the order of the Railroad Commissioners sought to be enforced by mandamus was made arbitrarily and without any evidence to support it.

It is incumbent upon the carrier to clearly show by convincing evidence that the service required in the entire traffic to which an order of the Railroad Commission applies would under the order, be rendered without just compensation, by showing the cost of respondent's entire intrastate service, to which the order applies, the receipts therefrom the value of the property properly apportioned to and devoted to such intrastate traffic, and the practical effect of applying the order.

Where a respondent railroad company avers the illegality of an order of the Railroad Commission forbidding special charges for the transportation of passengers over river bridges, and does not present evidence on which the court may adjudicate the legality of the order, the prima facie legal character of the order stands, making it enforceable by mandamus.

COUNSEL

Louis C. Massey, of Orlando, for relators.

Alex St. Clair Abrams, of Jacksonville, for respondent.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, J.

This proceeding was brought to enforce an order, No. 357, of the State Railroad Commissioners, which, in effect requires the respondent to cease charging extra compensation for the transportation of intrastate passengers over the carrier's bridges across the St. Johns river at Jacksonville and at Palatka, Fla.; the order being made upon the theory that the extra charge is unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory. The return to the alternative writ averred that the order was made 'arbitrarily and without any evidence,' and 'without one word of evidence * * * tending to show that the charges made over the bridges * * * were unjust and unreasonable.' The return also stated facts tending to show that the special charges complained of were not unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory, and that the enforcement of the order forbidding the special charges would deny to the respondent its property rights under the Constitution. A demurrer to the return, in effect, admitted the averments of facts contained in the return, and the demurrer was overruled. State ex rel. Railroad Com'rs v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 64 Fla. 112, 59 So. 385.

Subsequently replications to the return were filed making more specific the allegations contained in the alternative writ, and taking issue on the material averments of the respondent's return. Rejoinders seeking to justify the charges were filed in which it is also averred:

'That since the institution of the mandamus proceedings herein, and since the filing of the return, this respondent has readjusted its passenger rates along the entire line of road and reduced the special charge of 15 cents over the Jacksonville bridge, as well as the charge over the Palatka bridge of 20 cents, to 5 cents, applicable to all passengers without any discrimination whatever.'

Issue was taken on the rejoinders, and testimony was taken by consent proceedings, and the cause is now presented for final disposition on the pleadings and the evidence.

In order to avoid the enforcement of the order of the Railroad Commissioners the burden is upon the respondent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the order sought to be enforced was, in fact, as alleged, made arbitrarily and without any evidence whatever to support it, or that the order will in its practical operation be violative of the respondent's property rights under the state and federal Constitutions.

The only testimony in support of the averment that the order was made without any evidence whatever to support it is the following by the respondent's counsel:

'At no time was I ever advised or informed of any testimony being brought before the commissioners to sustain the citation to the company to appear before it and show cause why the order should not be issued. If there was any testimony taken before the commission, it was taken in my absence, and I was the sole attorney for the Florida East Coast Railway in that proceeding, and never was given any opportunity to cross-examine any witness or to rebut any testimony upon which that order was based.'

It does not appear that the counsel who testified was at all the hearings on the subject, and the commissioners may have had documentary evidence before them that was accessible to the respondent, which was not fully met by the respondent's showing adverse to the order then under consideration. Besides this, there is apparently a discrimination as to the special bridge charge which the commissioners may have regarded as unjust, in that a special charge is not, in fact, made as to freight or as to all passengers transported over the bridge.

The evidence above quoted does not of itself sustain the averment that the order was made without consideration of any evidentiary matters to support it; and, in the absence of admission by demurrer or otherwise, or of a clear and definite evidentiary showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the order was made upon investigation and a due consideration of substantial and pertinent evidence as a legal predicate for the official action taken. Until the contrary appears by admissions or proofs, it will be presumed that in making an order or regulation, the Railroad Commissioners acted not arbitrarily, but upon full hearing or after giving all interested parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and upon appropriate evidence duly considered and properly applied. State ex rel. Railroad Com'rs v. Florida East Coast R. Co., supra; State ex rel. Com'rs v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 63 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175; ...