Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission

160 So. 22, 118 Fla. 526, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1752
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 28, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 160 So. 22 (Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission, 160 So. 22, 118 Fla. 526, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1752 (Fla. 1935).

Opinions

Davis, J.

Central Truck Lines, Inc., a corporation, has filed this petition for certiorari attacking as contrary to law an order entered by the Railroad Commission granting its approval to an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity sought by the Seaboard Air Line Railway, a rail carrier, for the purpose of enabling it to operate a daily motor vehicle common carrier service between Tampa and Brooksville and between Waldo and Morriston, conditioned that when the business to be done by motor carrier so increases as to be profitable to transport by rail, the transportation in motor vehicles over the highways shall be abandoned and the rail service for which the highway transportation is thus substituted, shall be resumed.

No writ of certiorari has been issued, but by special order of this Court, the merits of the case have been orally argued, and all contentions of the respective parties fully presented in briefs filed in support of the pending application for such writ. So the proposition before us is whether or not the writ of certiorari shall issue and the order complained of be quashed thereon, or the proceeding dismissed for want *528 of a substantial ground of invalidity appearing in the Commission’s order to which the pending application for certiorari relates.

The facts of this case as found by the Railroad Commission and set forth in its order, are as follows:

“(a) That the Receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway operate a daily train from Baldwin to Tampa. That they consider it one of the most' important freight trains they operate in that it transports through freight from the west into Florida. That they also operate another daily through freight from Tampa to Baldwin. That both of these trains run through the territory involved in this application, but on account of the speed of the trains they are unable to stop at all stations and give service. That on this account this carrier also operates what is known as a turnaround service leaving Waldo in the morning and going to Morriston and occasionally as far as Dunnellon returning to Waldo in the afternoon. That in addition it has a tri-weekly local freight between Tampa and Dunnellon and also a turn-around train operating from Tampa to Brooksville and back to Tampa. That by means of these trains it handles all kinds of freight including a large tonnage of perishables such as cucumbers, eggplant, okra, corn, peppers and watermelons. That a great percentage of these perishables go to the eastern markets or the western markets and is a through movement. That many of these products are shipped by express. That these products must be at Waldo or at Tampa at a certain time in order to make the through train connection. That, if it does not make this through express connection for the eastern markets it means twenty-four hours delay to the express. That these local and turn-around trains gather up these shipments, but are not able to handle all of the L. *529 C. L. freight shipments as between these points because of the fact that it is necessary to have these products arrive at Waldo at a certain closing hour in order to make the through train connections. That in many instances L. C. L. freight is left at these stations because these turn-around trains or local freights are not able to handle it. That it is the purpose of the Receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway to substitute in part truck service for these turnaround trains and the greater part of the tonnage that would be transported on the trucks would be the express tonnage which must make through train connection. That the substitution of this truck service would enable the local freights to serve all of these stations and pick up and deliver freight because they would not be required to be on any particular schedule as it would not be necessary for them to make these through train connections. That the shipment of vegetables is a seasonal operation and that for a good part of the year these special turn-around trains that are operated between these points could be abandoned and only the local freights operated and through this means a saving would be realized to the rail carrier of between $8,000.00 and $10,000.00 per year.

“(b) That it is not the purpose of the applicants to make pick up and store door delivery at Tampa, Brooksville, Waldo or Morriston or any intermediate points with these-motor vehicles. That it only proposes to transport express or through freight which is delivered to them at their railway stations. That the applicants are agents of the Railway Express Agency and transport such express as is delivered to them at their freight stations. That the Express Company picks up and delivers its own express and delivers to the rail carrier at its depot and the applicant proposes to pick up this express from its own stations and *530 transport it on its tracks along the highway to its stations and in no event to áttempt to transport for the public generally or to pick up and deliver freight for the public.

“That in its opinion it will not impair the operations of any motor carrier along said route as it only proposes to transport express and freight that it now transports over its rail line, and that this service is in fact a mere substitution of truck service for rail service.”

A majority of the Commission were of the opinion that the granting of the application would effect a considerable saving to the rail carrier in its operation of train service, that the railroad was badly in need of revenue, and that the authorization sought would, if approved by the Commission, result in an expedited service of express and through freight that would he of benefit to the public. They were likewise of the opinion that the proposal to substitute truck service for rail service should only be permitted until business on the railroad so increased as to warrant a resumption of train service, in which event the truck service should be required to be abandoned. The Commission’s order was so framed as to thus express and condition the Commission’s approval of the application.

The Railroad Commission has been made the repository of a general grant of regulatory powers as to both rail and motor carrier services performed in the State of Florida. It supervises and regulates railroads (and to some extent water carrier service) by virtue of the long standing stat-utes of this State on that subject. See Sections 6692-6751 C. G. L., 4607-4665 R. G. S. It supervises and regulates auto transportation companies and their peculiar services by virtue of Chapter 13700, Acts 1929, and Chapter 14764, Acts 1931, which re-enacted and superseded the 1929 Act on the same subject. All of these statutes are in contení *531 plation of law statutes in pari materia and have for their object the appropriate regulation of both rail and motor transportation services in their relation to each other and in relation to the carrying on of commerce in the State insofar as the subject of transportation is concerned.

As evidence of the legislative purpose to be served by Chapter 14764, supra,

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

Related

Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Silco Petroleum Carrier, Inc.
312 So. 2d 457 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Gray v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.
22 Fla. Supp. 80 (Bay County Circuit Court, 1964)
Horluck Transportation Co. v. Eckright
352 P.2d 205 (Washington Supreme Court, 1960)
In re Rockana Carriers, Inc.
10 Fla. Supp. 56 (Florida Public Service Commission, 1957)
Tamiami Trail Tours v. Carter
80 So. 2d 322 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)
Stewart v. Mack
66 So. 2d 811 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Douglass
173 So. 162 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
McJunkin v. Railroad Commission
165 So. 368 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 So. 22, 118 Fla. 526, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-truck-lines-inc-v-railroad-commission-fla-1935.