Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Florida Ex Rel. Ellis

Supreme Court

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Florida Ex Rel. Ellis

203 U.S. 256, 27 S. Ct. 108, 51 L. Ed. 174, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1587

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 3, 1906·No. 9·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

Passing all matters of a local nature, in respect to which the decision of the state court is final, the Federal question is whether the order of the railroad commission, sustained by the Supreme Court of the State, deprived the company of its property without due process of law or denied to it the equal protection of the law. The testimony taken before the commission was not preserved, but by the'law of the State the rates established by such commission are to be. taken in all courts as prima facie just and reasonable. Laws Florida, 1899, pp. 76, 82, Chap. 4700, Sec. 8. We start, therefore, with the presumption in favor of the order.

The testimony on the hearing of the application in the Supreme Court is, however, in the record. That court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction of mandamus cases, determines questions of fact as well as of law. State ex rel. v. County Commissioners of Suwannee County, 21 Florida, 1. *260 While it did not'make any distinct findings of fact, yet its deductions from the testimony are clearly indicated by the quotations from its opinion. If it be said that in the absence of special findings of fact it is the duty of this court to examine the testimony upon which the judgment was entered, it is very clear that there was no sufficient evidence presented to that court to justify a refusal to enforce the order of the railroad commission.

And here we face this situation: The order of the commission was not operative upon all local rates but only fixed the rate on a single article, to wit, phosphate. There is no evidence of the amount of phosphates carried locally; neither is it shown how much a change in the rate of carrying them will affect the income, nor how much the rate fixed by the railroads for carrying phosphate has been changed by the order of the commission. There is testimony tending to show the gross income from all local freights and the value of the railroad property, .and also certain difficulties in the way of transporting phosphates owing to the lack of facilities at the terminals. But there is nothing from which we can determine the cost of such transportation.. We are aware of the difficulty which attends proof of the cost of transporting a single article, and in order to determine the. reasonableness of a rate prescribed it may sometimes be necessary to accept as a basis the average rate of all transportation per ton per mile. We shall not attempt to indicate to what extent or in what cases the inquiry must be special and limited. It is enough for the present to hold that there is in the record nothing from which a reasonable deduction can be made as to the cost of transportation, the amount of phosphates transported, or the effect which the •rate established by the commission will have upon the income. Under these circumstances it is impossible to hold that there was error in the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, and its judgment is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

Passing all matters of a local nature, in respect to which the decision of the state court is final, the Federal question is whether the order of the railroad commission, sustained by the Supreme Court of the State, deprived the company of its property without due process of law or denied to it the equal protection of the law. The testimony taken before the commission was not preserved, but by the'law of the State the rates established by such commission are to be. taken in all courts as prima facie just and reasonable. Laws Florida, 1899, pp. 76, 82, Chap. 4700, Sec. 8. We start, therefore, with the presumption in favor of the order.

The testimony on the hearing of the application in the Supreme Court is, however, in the record. That court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction of mandamus cases, determines questions of fact as well as of law. State ex rel. v. County Commissioners of Suwannee County, 21 Florida, 1. *260 While it did not'make any distinct findings of fact, yet its deductions from the testimony are clearly indicated by the quotations from its opinion. If it be said that in the absence of special findings of fact it is the duty of this court to examine the testimony upon which the judgment was entered, it is very clear that there was no sufficient evidence presented to that court to justify a refusal to enforce the order of the railroad commission.

And here we face this situation: The order of the commission was not operative upon all local rates but only fixed the rate on a single article, to wit, phosphate. There is no evidence of the amount of phosphates carried locally; neither is it shown how much a change in the rate of carrying them will affect the income, nor how much the rate fixed by the railroads for carrying phosphate has been changed by the order of the commission. There is testimony tending to show the gross income from all local freights and the value of the railroad property, .and also certain difficulties in the way of transporting phosphates owing to the lack of facilities at the terminals. But there is nothing from which we can determine the cost of such transportation.. We are aware of the difficulty which attends proof of the cost of transporting a single article, and in order to determine the. reasonableness of a rate prescribed it may sometimes be necessary to accept as a basis the average rate of all transportation per ton per mile. We shall not attempt to indicate to what extent or in what cases the inquiry must be special and limited. It is enough for the present to hold that there is in the record nothing from which a reasonable deduction can be made as to the cost of transportation, the amount of phosphates transported, or the effect which the •rate established by the commission will have upon the income. Under these circumstances it is impossible to hold that there was error in the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, and its judgment is

Affirmed.

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Florida Ex Rel. Ellis, 203 U.S. 256, 27 S. Ct. 108, 51 L. Ed. 174, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1587 (1906).

Pincite

203 U.S. 256 (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Florida Ex Rel. Ellis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related