State v. Louisville & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1911
• Citation: 57 So. 175,62 Fla. 315
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RAILROAD COM'RS v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

57 So. 175

62 Fla. 315

STATE ex rel. RAILROAD COM'RS v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

November 28, 1911

Headnotes Filed Jan. 3, 1912.

Mandamus by the State on the relation of the Railroad Commissioners to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and another.Demurrer to return to alternative writ sustained in part, and overruled in part.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

When acting within the authority conferred upon them, a wide discretion is accorded to the Railroad Commissioners; and an alleged abuse of discretion by them must be affirmatively and sufficiently shown by admissions or proofs before the courts will interfere.Valid regulations of the Railroad Commission should be made effective as contemplated by the Constitution and statutes.

A railroad common carrier may, in addition to the facilities and accommodations already furnished, be required to render a particular service that it is essentially the duty of the carrier to do for the reasonable convenience of its patrons among the public, and to meet the reasonable requirements of the public service undertaken.

Even though a particular duty of a railroad company if enforced would be in itself unremunerative and burdensome, such a result would be an incident to the service voluntarily undertaken, in consideration of the franchises permitted to be used for the public good, and the property rights of the carrier would not thereby be unlawfully invaded, if the particular service is reasonably necessary for the public convenience, and the burden to the carrier has some fair relation to the benefits accruing to the public, and the burden of the particular service, considered with reference to the entire business of the carrier, does not in reality amount to a denial to the carrier of a reasonable compensation for the service rendered by it as an entirety.

Where it appears that a particular service is a duty vitally necessary to the public, and its performance is essential in adequately rendering a general public service as a common carrier, the fact that the performance of the particular duty will be unremunerative will not in view of the nature of the duty to the public excuse nonperformance.

If the performance of a particular useful but nonessential duty will as a part of a general public service contribute to the public convenience, the fact that the particular service must be rendered at a loss does not, in view of the nature of the duty required, excuse nonperformance; but the loss occasioned by the performance of a particular duty may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the order requiring the particular service to be rendered.

The general and special powers conferred by the statutes of the state upon the Railroad Commissioners are ample to authorize them to make and enforce just and reasonable orders, rules and regulations for the furnishing of reasonably adequate facilities and accommodations to the traveling public by the operation of passenger trains separate from freight cars, and for establishing schedules to be observed in operating such passenger trains between points within this state; and all such orders, rules, and regulations when made are by the statute declared to be rpima facie reasonable and just.

If particular regulations are reasonably useful and expedient for the just requirements of the public service being performed by a common carrier, thereby making it a duty of the carrier to render the service, the regulations, if not illegal, may be enforced, even though the service required is not remunerative, unless it is made to clearly appear that the particular regulations are so unreasonable and arbitrary that their enforcement will operate to deny to the respondents a reasonable compensation for the entire service rendered by the carrier.

In determining whether a rate, rule, regulation, or order of the Railroad Commission upon a subject within its authority is so unreasonable and arbitrary as to be illegal and unenforceable, the court, in deference to the governmental functions conferred by law upon the Commissioners, will not only require the prima facies of reasonableness impressed by the statute upon the rate, rule, regulation, or order to be overcome by admissions or proofs, but will require the admissions or proofs of facts tending to show unreasonableness to be clear and convincing; every reasonable doubt being yielded in favor of the rate, rule, regulation or order.

The reasonableness of a rate, rule, regulation, or order of the Railroad Commissioners is to be determined by a consideration of the rights of all parties directly and materially affected by the rate, rule, regulation, or order.This involves a consideration of all the facts and circumstances by such appropriate processes and standards of reasoning and computation as are afforded by law or by common experience and the dictates of right and justice.

In determining whether the burden of a particular regulation enforced by state authority is confiscatory and unlawful because it prevents a railroad company from receiving a reasonable compensation for the service rendered taken as an entirety, the fair actual value of all the property and labor and management rightly used in rendering the service should be considered.The cost of reproduction of the property may be an element to be considered in ascertaining the real value of the property used, but it is not the value that is to be arbitrarily considered in determining what is a reasonable compensation for the service rendered as a whole by a common carrier.

Where the same property, labor, and management agement are used at the same time by a common carrier in interstate and intrastate commerce, the value of the property and labor and management used should be properly apportioned in determining the reasonableness of the compensation for service rendered by the carrier in the intrastate business taken separately and as an entirety, or in connection with the interstate business concurrently done.

The state may enforce regulations to be observed by a railroad common carrier in intrastate transportation for the safety and convenience of the public who are affected by the regulation, even though interstate commerce is thereby indirectly and incidentally affected, without violating the interstate commerce clause of the federal Constitution, where such regulations are in aid of, or do not in fact impose substantial burden upon, lawful interstate commerce, or do not conflict with regulations of the subject that are legally prescribed or authorized by Congress.

Where a governmental regulation is directly prescribed by valid legislative enactment its expediency and reasonableness, when no violation of organic law is involved, will not be inquired into by the courts, since the Legislature and the judiciary are co-ordinate branches of the state government, and legislative action is subject only to the organic law, and is reviewable by the courts only when the supreme law of the land is violated.

Action taken by an administrative officer or board must not only be in accordance with organic law, but it must conform to applicable valid statutes, and must be reasonable in its operation.Such administrative action is also subject to judicial review as to matters that are not concluded by the exercise of administrative discretion and action.

The Railroad Commissioners may be reasonable and just rules and regulations require the running of passenger trains separate from freight trains, and such reasonable regulations will be enforced by the courts.

It is the duty of the carrier to render a service that is reasonably adequate and of most convenience to the greatest number of the public affected by the service.

The Railroad Commissioners are authorized to make and enforce only reasonable and just rules and regulations for intrastate transportation.

In determining the reasonableness of a regulation authorized by the statute'for the establishing of such schedules for the arrival and departure of trains at depots as public comfort and convenience may require,' the necessities and convenience of the public to be affected by the regulation should be considered as a whole and severably, regard being had for the number and reasonable requirements of patrons at different points on the line, and from connecting lines, as well as the rights of the carrier.

Where it clearly appears that a schedule prescribed by the Railroad Commissioners for the operation of particular trains is not reasonable or just or practical with reference to all the interests directly affected thereby, such schedule will not be enforced by the courts.

The power to make reasonable rules and regulations for establishing schedules does not contemplate that the Commissioners shall arbitrarily assume the actual control and management of the physical property of the carrier, so as to unlawfully deprive the carrier of its right to manage its own property; but such grant of power does contemplate that the Railroad Commissioners by making and enforcing just and reasonable rules and orders shall supervise and regulate 'the establishing' of proper schedules as in all other matters affecting the service within the authority conferred by statute.

The Railroad Commissioners may perform their duties conferred by statute without awaiting a specific complaint to be made to them.

COUNSEL

F. M. Hudson, for relators.

W. A Blount and W. J. Oven, for respondents.The following alternative writ of mandamus was issued by this court:

'The State of Florida to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and the Seaboard Air Line Railway--Greeting:

'Whereas, by a

...