State v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1927
• Citation: State v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 92 Fla. 1139, 111 So. 281 (Fla. 1927)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BURR et al., State Railroad Com'rs v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

111 So. 281

92 Fla. 1139

STATE ex rel. BURR et al., State Railroad Com'rs v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

January 10, 1927

En Banc.

Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of R. Hudson Burr and others, as State Railroad Commissioners, for mandamus to be directed to the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. Peremptory writ to issue.

See also, 89 Fla. 419, 104 So. 602, 39 A. L. R. 1362.

Jerrell Brown, JJ., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, return notwithstanding involves determination of whether return's allegations are sufficient to preclude issuance of writ. Motion was made by the relators for the issuance of a peremptory writ, the return notwithstanding. Such motion is equivalent to a demurrer to the return, and therefore involves the determination of whether or not the allegations of the return are sufficient to preclude the issuance of the writ.

Railroad reasonably compensated for service rendered as entirety, may be required to render particular service, A railroad common carrier may, in addition 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 such a particular duty, 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 with reference to the entire business of the carrier, does not in reality amount to a denial to does not in reality amount to a denial to the carrier of a reasonable compensation for the service rendered by it as an entirety.

That particular service vitally necessary to public will be unprofitable does not excuse carrier's nonperformance. 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 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.

Performance of service reasonably necessary may be enforced, though unprofitable, except on showing enforcement denies railroad reasonable compensation for entire service. If such particular regulations are reasonably useful and expedient for the just requirements of the public service being performed by the respondents, 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.

To determine whether particular regulation is confiscatory, fair value of railroad's property, labor, and management, rightly used, should be considered. 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.

Reasonable requirements of growing community or increasing business should be anticipated by carrier. It is the duty of the carrier to anticipate the needs of the public, and to provide appropriate and reasonably adequate facilities and accommodations to meet the present and prospective demands for the safety, comfort, and convenience of the public who have a right to use the facilities and accommodations. The reasonable requirements of a growing community or of an increasing business should be anticipated by a carrier in the performance of its public duty.

Particular regulation, causing pecuniary loss to carrier, but reasonable with reference to just public demands, is not taking property without due process. Even where a particular regulation causes a pecuniary loss to the carrier, if it is reasonable with reference to the just demands of the public to be affected by it, and it does not arbitrarily impose an unreasonable burden upon the carrier, the regulation will not be a taking of property in violation of the Constitution.

In determining whether regulation or order of Railroad Commission is illegal, proof of unreasonableness must be clear and convincing. 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 defendance 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 admission 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.

Reasonableness of regulation or order of railroad commissioners is determined by rights of all parties directly and materially affected thereby. 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.

Test of validity of regulation or order of railroad commissioners is whether it is reasonable for public convenience and lawful burden. A proper test is, not whether the facilities required by the order are in fact necessary, but whether they are reasonable for the convenience and safety of the public to be served, and the expense to the carrier is not so unreasonably out of proportion to the convenience afforded to the public as to impose an unlawful burden upon the carrier.

Facts properly pleaded in return are considered admitted by motion for peremptory writ of mandamus notwithstanding return; facts admitted in return to alternative writ of mandamus held not to overcome railroad commissioners' finding that new depot was reasonably necessary. The facts properly pleaded in the return are taken as admitted by the motion for the peremptory writ, notwithstanding the return, and in this case such admitted facts do not clearly and convincingly overcome the prima facie effect under the statute of the finding by the Railroad Commission, after taking testimony and making a personal examination of the premises, that the present facilities are insufficient for the safety, convenience, and comfort of the public to be served at the point named, nor to overcome the prima facie effect of the finding of the commissioners that the facilities required in the order are reasonably necessary for the safety, convenience, and comfort of the public which is to use such facilities at present and in the future.

COUNSEL

Fred H. Davis, of Tallahassee, for relators.

W. J. Oven, of Tallahassee, for respondent.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus on the petition of the Railroad Commission of Florida to require the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a corporation, to provide freight and passenger depot facilities at Dade City, Fla. The writ required compliance with the Railroad Commission's Order No. 810, and directed the railroad company as follows:

'(1) To move your present combination frame depot at Dade City, Fla., south from its present site, and locate the same, for freight service, approximate to the north boundary line of Church street in said city and adjacent to your rails on the lands belonging to your company, so as to make the present depot site available for the building of a new passenger depot.

'(2) To erect and construct a new passenger depot at Dade City, Fla., to be located on the site of the present depot, the north wall of said new depot to begin approximately 40 feet from the south curb line of Meridian street.

'(3) To provide such new passenger depot with the following:

'(a) A waiting room for white passengers, to contain not less than 600 square feet of floor space.

'(b) A rest room for white women, to contain not less than 85 square feet of floor space, and to be connected with and open into the waiting room for white passengers.

'(c) A toilet for white women, to contain not less than 45 square feet of floor space, and to be connected with and open into said rest room for white women.

'(d) A smoking room for white passengers, to contain not less than 85 square feet of floor space, and to be connected with and open into the waiting room for white passengers.

'(e) A toilet for white men, to contain not less than 45 square feet of floor space, and to be connected with and open into said smoking room for white passengers.

'(f) A waiting room for colored passengers, to contain

...