State v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

Decision Date29 June 1926
PartiesSTATE ex rel. BURR et al., State Railroad Com'rs v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO.[*] SAME ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

On Motion to File Amended Answers, August 10, 1926.

En Banc.

Original proceedings by the State, on the relation of R. Hudson Burr and others, Railroad Commissioners, for mandamus to be directed to the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Cases considered together.

Peremptory writ awarded.

On Motion for Leave to File Amended Answers.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In mandamus proceeding to require application of intrastate rates, averments in answer that certain courts and commission has held similar transportation to be interstate constitute no defense. In a proceeding in mandamus to require the application by a carrier of intrastate rates in transporting certain commodities, averments in an answer by the carrier that certain courts and commissions had held the transportation of like commodities under similar circumstances to be an interstate activity constitute no defense.

The sufficiency of a return (or answer) to an alternative writ of mandamus may be challenged by a motion for a peremptory writ.

When the defense consists of matters in confession and avoidance the return must aver in detail every fact necessary to establish the avoidance.

When products, transported in bulk, come into state on interstate movement, whether subsequent movements from receiving point to other points in state are interstate commerce must be determined by essential character thereof, not by billing or forms of contracts. When certain commodities, like petroleum and petroleum products, which are transported in bulk, come into the state on an interstate movement, whether the subsequent movements of such products from the receiving point in the state to other points in the state are movements in interstate or intrastate commerce must be determined by the essential character of the commerce, and not by the billing or forms of contracts.

Where crude oil is pumped from tank steamers, which bring it into state, into tank cars to be carried to places originally intended by shippers, last part of journey is not intrastate movement because shippers' business agent at part of entry supervises transshipment and rebilling. When crude oil is pumped from tank steamers, which bring it into the state into tank cars on the railroad tracks to be carried to the places to which it was originally intended by the shippers it should be taken, the last leg of the journey is not made an intrastate movement because a business agent of the shipper at the port of entry supervises the transshipment and rebilling of the commodity.

Mere existence of business agencies of oil companies at port of entry to which crude oil and gasoline are brought in interstate movement is not factor converting movement into intrastate movement. The mere existence of business agencies of oil companies at ports of entry, to which crude oils and gasoline are brought in interstate movement, is not the determining factor which converts the movement, which began in interstate commerce, into an intrastate movement.

Cause and purpose of delay of petroleum products at ports of entry into state determine whether reshipments are continuation of original interstate movement. The cause and purpose of the delay of the petroleum products, brought into the state in interstate movement, at the ports of entry to which they are first consigned are the factors by which it may be determined whether reshipments of the products at the ports of entry from storage tanks and warehouses, into which the products have been stored, is or is not a continuation of the original interstate movement.

Answer or return to alternative writ to require railroad companies to apply intrastate rates to transportation of petroleum oil and petroleum products, not denying allegations of alternative writ, held insufficient. An answer or return to an alternative writ of mandamus to require railroad companies to apply the intrastate rates in the transportation of petroleum oil and petroleum products in this state is insufficient as a defense which does not deny the allegations of the alternative writ as to ownership of the products arriving at the ports to be in the shipper company; and that storage at the ports of entry is for the convenience of the shipper and subsequent disposition of the commodity; that all or any portion of it may be resold and diverted from its original destination; that it is held at the storage tanks by the companies for their profit by sales to customers with whom at the time of original shipment they have no contract.

Return to sufficient alternative writ must state all facts relied on with such precision that court may be fully advised of particulars necessary to enable it to pass on sufficiency of return; statements of return to sufficient alternative writ of mandamus cannot be supplemented by inference or intendment. A return to a sufficient alternative writ of mandamus must state all the facts relied upon by the respondent with such precision and certainty that the court may be fully advised of all the particulars necessary to enable it to pass upon the sufficiency of the return; and its statements cannot be supplemented by inference or intendment.

Great strictness of pleading is required in returns which set up matter of confession and avoidance.

A general denial in an answer in mandamus may be qualified or explained by the positive averments of the answer.

By moving for peremptory writ on pleadings, relators admit truth of well-pleaded facts in answer or return, but not asserted conclusions not sustained by facts stated. In mandamus proceedings, by moving for a peremptory writ on the pleadings, the relators admit the truth of the well-pleaded averments of facts that are contained in the answer or return, but do not admit asserted conclusions that are not sustained by facts stated in the answer or return.

Where allegations of alternative writ show shipments are intrastate, answer averring conclusions that shipments are interstate, but not stating facts clearly showing them to be interstate, is not good defense to issuance of peremptory writ. Where the allegations of an alternative writ of mandamus show that the shipments to which an intrastate rate is commanded to be applied are intrastate shipments, and the answer to the alternative writ avers conclusions that the shipments are interstate shipments, but does not state facts that clearly show the shipments to be in fact and in law interstate and not intrastate shipments, such answer is not a good defense to the issuance of a peremptory writ.

In mandamus, neither a demurrer to the answer nor a motion for the peremptory writ, the answer notwithstanding, admits either conclusions of law or conclusions of fact not sustained by facts properly alleged.

Although motion for peremptory writ, notwithstanding answer, is equivalent to demurrer to answer as to determination of sufficiency of answer and admissions thereby, orders entered on those pleadings are essentially different in character. Although a motion for peremptory writ, the answer notwithstanding, is equivalent to a demurrer to the answer in the sense that each of those pleadings involves a determination of the sufficiency of the answer and admits the truth of all matters pleaded therein, the orders entered on those pleadings are essentially different in character.

A demurrer to an answer in mandamus contemplates an interlocutory order either sustaining or overruling the demurrer; and if the demurrer is sustained, leave to amend may be allowed in due course.

A motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, notwithstanding the answer, contemplates a final order either quashing or dismissing the alternative writ or granting the peremptory writ.

Amendments of pleadings should not be allowed when not duly applied for or where issues deliberately made have been finally adjudicated on full submission, or where amendments can serve no useful purpose. While, upon the applications, amendments of pleadings should be allowed to further the ends of justice, yet they should not be allowed when not duly applied for, or where the issues that were deliberately made have been finally adjudicated on full submission, or when the amendments can serve no useful purpose.

Averments in proposed amended answers to alternative writ to enforce application of intrastate rates held not to show shipment from permanent storage tanks to points of distribution to be interstate. Averments, in proposed amended answers, that petroleum products are shipped by tank steamers from other states or countries to Florida ports and there unloaded into permanent storage tanks owned and maintained by the shippers and that the shippers know and intend from the inception of the shipment in other states or countries that nearly all of each cargo will be reshipped in tank cars from the shipper's permanent storage tanks at the Florida ports to interior Florida points, for the shippers' purpose of filling yearly contracts with the shippers' customers and of supplying distributing stations at interior points, do not show the shipments from the shippers' permanent storage tanks to be interstate and not intrastate shipments particularly when the alternative writs allege, and the answers do not deny, that the shipments to interior Florida points from the shippers' permanent storage tanks at the Florida ports are made as orders therefor are received by the shippers from their agents or customers.

Where oil is unloaded at ports into permanent storage tanks maintained by shippers to reship as orders are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Continental Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1944
    ...the delay resulted in benefits to the shipper and was not for the facilitation of commerce. In State ex rel. Railroad Comm'rs v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 92 Fla. 61, 77, 109 So. 656, 662, certiorari dismissed, 275 U. S. 577, 48 S.Ct. 141, 72 L.Ed. 435, the court found evidence that the oi......
  • State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control of Fla.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 1 Agosto 1950
    ...writ or granting the peremptory writ to the extent that the prayer of the alternative writ is wellfounded; State v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 92 Fla. 61, 109 So. 656; Leonard Bros. Transfer & Storage Co. v. Carter, 127 Fla. 198, 172 So. 924; State ex rel. Raulerson v. Smith, 157 Fla. 838, ......
  • Fisher v. Miller
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 1926
  • City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Pickin' Chicken of Lincoln Road, Inc., 60-470
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 11 Mayo 1961
    ...met by the entry of the judgment awarding or granting to the relator the peremptory writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Burr v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 92 Fla. 61, 109 So. 656, 664; State ex rel. Davis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 97 Fla. 816, 122 So. 256, 257; State ex rel. Hawkins v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT