Florida Crushed Stone Co. v. Apalachicola Northern R. R.

20 Fla. Supp. 139
CourtFlorida Public Service Commission
DecidedSeptember 27, 1962
DocketNo. 6396-RR
StatusPublished

This text of 20 Fla. Supp. 139 (Florida Crushed Stone Co. v. Apalachicola Northern R. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Florida Public Service Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florida Crushed Stone Co. v. Apalachicola Northern R. R., 20 Fla. Supp. 139 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1962).

Opinion

BY THE COMMISSION.

As a result of several orders entered by the commission in the above docket, the Florida East Coast Railway Company filed its petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of Florida seeking a review of said orders and a stay of the force and effect thereof pending completion of such review. The Supreme Court temporarily relinquished its jurisdiction in the matter and remanded the proceeding to this commission with directions that it grant a stay order upon the posting by Florida East Coast Railway Company of a supersedeas bond with the commission in the amount and upon such terms and conditions as the commission shall fix after notice to the attorneys for the parties and an opportunity given to such attorneys to be heard.

By virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court, this commission considers that its sole jurisdiction in this cause at this time is for the limited purpose of granting a stay of its prior orders, and fixing the terms and conditions of supersedeas bond. For that purpose, the commission designated its executive director and general counsel, Lewis W. Petteway, as examiner to hear the respective parties by their attorneys and recommend such terms and conditions for the supersedeas bond as may be justified by the facts presented to him by said parties for consideration by the commission. Said examiner held a formal conference with the attorneys for the parties and has made his recommendations to this commission.

We have previously denied a stay of our orders no. 3296 and no. 3296-A, which are now being contested by the Florida East Coast Railway Company before the Supreme Court. Our refusal to stay the force and effect of said orders has been reversed by the Supreme Court and we have been directed to grant the stay as requested. We have no discretion in the matter and, therefore, we shall direct herein that the force and effect of our orders no. 3296 and no. 3296-A, entered in docket no. 6396-RR, be stayed pending review and final decision thereof by the Supreme Court.

The attorneys for the parties in this cause have expressed considerable difference of opinion concerning the appropriate terms and conditions of the proposed supersedeas bond. The railroad takes the position that a bond in the sum of approximately $30,-000 would be adequate to protect the rights of intervening respondents in the certiorari proceeding, who, incidentally, were the [141]*141complainants in the original proceeding before the commission. On the other hand, the intervening respondents appear to feel that the bond should be not less than one million dollars, preferably more.

We have given careful consideration to the issues involved, and the rights of the parties to be protected by the supersedeas bond, and it is our opinion, and we so find, that a bond in the sum of $50,000 will be adequate in the premises. In arriving at this conclusion, we have taken into consideration the fact that the amount of the bond is not a limitation on the liability, or prospective liability, of the railroad in the event the Supreme Court should affirm our orders no. 3296 and 3296-A. Whatever the actual damages are which the intervening respondents may suffer by reason of the certiorari proceedings and the stay of the force and effect of our orders, the Florida East Coast Railway Company may be required to pay through appropriate court action, regardless of the amount of said bond.

The bond, then, is not a measure of possible damages, nor a full guaranty of payment of total damages. It is, rather, a good faith undertaking and as such may reasonably be set considerably less than anticipated or estimated damages.

The bond should cover damages incurred from the effective date of the orders which the Supreme Court is asked to review, inasmuch as the parties have agreed to this condition, and the stay of the orders should likewise be from said date.

There is attached hereto a copy of supersedeas bond submitted by Florida East Coast Railway Company, which we find contains proper and appropriate terms and conditions to be incorporated in the bond which the Florida East Coast Railway Company should be required to post in this proceeding as a condition precedent to a stay of our order no. 3296, as amended by our order no. 3296-A, dated January 15, 1962 and March 16, 1962, respectively.

Now, therefore, in consideration thereof, it is ordered that the force and effect of orders no. 3296 and no. 3296-A, issued by this commission on January 15,1962 and March 16,1962, respectively, be and the same are hereby stayed, pending final determination of the aforesaid certiorari proceeding in the Supreme Court of Florida, provided the Florida East Coast Railway Company shall first execute and file with this commission a good and sufficient surety bond in the sum of $50,000 conditioned in accordance with the terms and conditions of appendix A, which is hereto attached and made a part of this order.

[142]*142It is further ordered that the stay of the force and effect of said orders no. 3296 and 3296-A, upon the posting of said bond by Florida East Coast Railway Company, shall be retroactive to the effective date of said orders; otherwise, said orders no. 3296 and 3296-A shall remain in full force and effect.

APPENDIX A

SUPERSEDEAS BOND

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That Florida East Coast Railway 'Company, a Florida corporation, with principal office in the City of St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida, hereinafter called Principal, and ......................................................................................... a corporation organized under the laws of................................................ and duly licensed and authorized to do a surety business in the State of Florida, as Surety, are held and firmly bound, jointly and severally, unto Wilbur C. King, Jerry W. Carter, and Edwin L. Mason, as members of and constituting the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, and their successors in office, for the use and benefit of all person and persons, corporation and corporations, municipalities, counties, and agencies of the State of Florida, making or receiving, or both, intrastate shipments of Sand, Gravel, and Stone in multiple-car lots of ten (10) or more on and after March 26, 1962 under supplement to part of Item 64050 to Sand, Gravel, and Stone Tariff 388-J, I. C. C. S-146, as ordered and more fully described in that certain Order No. 3296 dated January 15, 1962, and Order No. 3296-A dated March 16, 1962, of Florida Crushed Stone Company, et al., Complainants, vs. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 6396-RR, the pertinent portions of said two Orders reading as follows:

(A) “ORDERED by the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission that defendants remove said discriminations and preferences by publishing and filing with this Commission on 30 days notice in the Sand, Gravel, and Stone Tariff 388J, I. C. C. S-146, as a supplement to part of item 64050, the following provisions, for application in connection with all rates in the tariff to which the said part of item 64050 are applicable, and for application on all railroads, from all producing points to all destinations within and throughout the State of Florida, on intrastate traffic: ‘Multiple-car shipments: When shipments are made in lots of 10 or more

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Fla. Supp. 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-crushed-stone-co-v-apalachicola-northern-r-r-flapubserv-1962.