State v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1915
• Citation: 67 So. 906,69 Fla. 165
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RAILROAD COM'RS v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

67 So. 906

69 Fla. 165

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

Florida Supreme Court

February 16, 1915

Original mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Railroad Commissioners, against the Florida East Coast Railway Company, a corporation. Motion to strike return and demurrer to the return overruled.

Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., dissenting.

Mandamus goes out only where there is a clear legal right in the relator and a corresponding duty on the defendant.

An order of the Railroad Commissioners requiring the establishment of an agency station held unreasonble.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Mandamus will issue only where a clear right to the writ is shown.

The orders of the Railroad Commissioners directing the establishment of stations by railroad companies and common carriers in the state will be accorded the force and weight required by the statute, but, if it appears that such orders were made indisputably contrary to the evidence, or without any evidence, the character of prima facie reasonableness will be destroyed thereby, and the order will be deemed to be arbitrary, and therefore made without the consideration the statute requires to be given such matters by the Railroad Commissioners.

Whether a legislative exercise of the police powers, including the regulation of railroads, is reasonable, is a judicial question, and, even though the law gives to administrative action the effect of prima facie reasonableness, the courts may inquire into the reasonableness of the action, and, if it clearly appears that the administrative action complained of is an abuse of discretion, and is not, in fact, reasonable such action will not be enforced.

Unreasonable regulations are not within the authority conferred by law upon the Railroad Commissioners, and, when it appears by the pleadings or the evidence in a case that an order or regulation is unreasonable or unjust with reference to all the substantial interests affected by it or violative of constitutional provisions for the protection of private property rights, such regulations will not be enforced by the courts.

The duty of a railroad corporation to provide fit and suitable roadbeds and tracks and rolling stock may be distinguished from the duty to provide station and depot agencies along its line of road. The one is an essentially higher and more important duty than the other. In the latter case the fact that the performance of the duty will be unremunerative may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the order requiring it to be performed.

Where in an application by the Railroad Commissioners for a writ of mandamus to compel a railroad corporation to establish and maintain an agency station at a certain point on the line of its railroad, it appears in the return of the respondent which was demurred to by the relators that the railroad is operated at a loss, that its stockholders receive no dividends, that there is no sinking fund, that its income is not sufficient to pay the interest which it is obligated to pay on its bonds, that the present value of the railroad properties is greater than its bonded indebtedness and par value of its capital stock, and that to establish the agency would entail further financial loss on the company, and that the amplest accommodation for the business the road receives exists at the point where the order directs the station to be established and maintained, the order of the Railroad Commissioners will be deemed to be unreasonable, and the demurrer to the return will be overruled.

Where in an application by the Railroad Commissioners for a writ of mandamus to compel a railroad corporation to establish and maintain an agency station at a certain point on its line of railroad, it appears in the return of the respondent which was demurred to by the relators that no testimony was taken by the Railroad Commissioners to show any necessity for the establishment of such agency, that no witnesses were examined, that there was no evidence before the Commissioners of any delay on the part of the respondent in handling receiving, or delivering freight at the said point, and that the order was made without evidence as to the necessity for establishing such an agency, it will be deemed that such an order was not made in due course of law and is subject to be set aside.

COUNSEL

F. M. Hudson, of Tallahassee, for relators.

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

OPINION

ELLIS J.

This is an original application to this court for a writ of mandamus requiring the respondent, the Florida East Coast Railway Company, to conform to an order of the Railroad Commissioners requiring and directing the said respondent to establish and maintain an agency station at Mims, Fla.

The order of the Railroad Commissioners is as follows:

'Order No. 415.

'File No. 3402.

'Before the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida.

'In the Matter of the Application for an Order Requiring the Florida East Coast Railway Company to Establish and Maintain an Agency Station at Mims, Fla.

'After due and lawful notice this matter came on for consideration before the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida at their office in the city of Tallahassee on the 18th day of March, 1913, at 10 o'clock in the morning, the Florida East Coast Railway Company then and there appearing by its counsel, Hon. Alexander St. Clair-Abrams, who was fully heard. And thereupon the said matter was taken under advisement.

'And now on this day, the said matter coming on for further consideration, the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida do find that the freight and passenger business done by the Florida East Coast Railway Company at Mims, a flag station on its line of railway, is sufficient to warrant and necessitate the maintenance of an agency at said point.

'Wherefore it is ordered and adjudged by the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida that the Florida East Coast Railway Company be and it is hereby required and directed to establish and maintain an agency station at Mims aforesaid, the said agency station to be maintained from and after the 1st day of November, 1913.

'Done and ordered by the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida, in session at their Office in the city of Tallahassee, this 29th day of September, A. D. 1913.

'R. Hudson Burr, Chairman.'

An alternative writ of mandamus was issued commanding the respondent to establish and maintain an agency station at Mims, a station on the line of its railway between Titusville and Enterprise Junction, or to show cause before the Justices of this court on the day named in the writ why it refuses so to do.

The alternative writ alleges that the respondent, Florida East Coast Railway Company, is a railroad corporation doing business as a common carrier in this state; that it operates a line of road lying wholly within the state and extending from Jacksonville to Key West, and in connection therewith a branch line, extending from Titusville, on the main line, to Enterprise Junction, on the line of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company; that the corporation transports persons and property over its line of railroad as a common carrier, and holds itself out as such; that Mims is a nonagency station between Titusville and Enterprise Junction at which local passenger trains have been accustomed to stop on flag, and at which freight has been received and delivered in car load and less than car load quantities; that on the 12th day of February, 1913, the Railroad Commissioners notified the railroad company that the Commissioners would be in session at their office in Tallahassee on the 11th day of March, 1913, for the purpose of hearing and considering whether or not they ought to require the railroad company to establish and maintain an agency station at Mims; that, on application of the attorney for the railroad company, the hearing was postponed to the 18th of March, and on that date, the Railroad Commissioners being in session, and the railroad company appearing by its attorney, and after hearing all who desired to be heard, the matter was taken under advisement; that on the 29th day of September, 1913, the Railroad Commissioners made and entered the order above copied; that the railroad company has disregarded and failed and refused to obey the order, and has not at any time since the entry of the order maintained an agency at Mims.

The return of the railway company to the alternative writ admits the foregoing allegations, and avers that it filed an answer to the notice served upon it, which answer set forth in detail and in full all grounds of defense against the establishment of a regular agency at Mims, and, beginning at paragraph 7, avers that the order was unjust and unreasonable, for the reasons set forth in the written defense submitted to the Commission, and for the further reasons:

That the total business at Mims does not warrant or require the establishment of an agency there; that to establish the agency it would be necessary for the company to spend approximately $3,170 in the construction of a freight and passenger station with the necessary supplies and equipment, and the annual cost of the agency would not be less than $1,388; that the freight and passenger earnings of the station of the calendar years ending December 31, 1910, 1911, and 1912, were as follows:

'For the year ending December 31, 1910, the freight forwarded aggregated $5,594.27, of which there were forwarded in car load lots $4,507.19, leaving only $1,087.08 of revenue from less than car load lots. Of the total revenue of freight forwarded, $4,612.94 were forwarded during the months of January, February, November, and December,...