THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. W. H. ELLIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, RELATOR,
v.
THE ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a railroad company acting as a common carrier must provide equal service to all telegraph and telephone companies under the same conditions, and cannot discriminate by serving one company while refusing service to another. The court upheld the Railroad Commissioners' authority to issue a general order requiring the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad to serve the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company on the same terms it served Western Union.
The court held that the Railroad Commissioners had full authority under the Florida Constitution and Chapter 4700 of the 1899 acts to issue the general order. A railroad acting as a common carrier must serve all members of the public alike under like conditions and cannot discriminate by serving one telegraph company while refusing service to another. The order's application to only the respondent does not render it unauthorized, as it applies to whoever voluntarily performs such service.
“a railroad company where it acts as a common carrier is bound to serve all the members of the public alike, who apply for service, under like conditions”
States the fundamental principle that common carriers must provide non-discriminatory service to all applicants on equal terms
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company had voluntarily performed telegraph and telephone pole and wire delivery services for the Western Union Teleg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Carrier Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
Hocker, J.,
(after stating the facts.) We do not think it necessary to repeat what is contained in the opinion in the previous case decided at his term between the same parties as to the powers of the Eailroad Commissioners to correct abuses and prevent unjust discrim inations by persons and corporations engaged as common carriers in transporting persons and property or perform • ing other services of a public nature. The demurrer admits the allegations of the alternative writ, and those allegations in our opinion clearly show that the respondent has violated the general order of the Railroad Commissioners requiring it to perform for any and all telegraph and telephone companies a service, in effect, similar to that which it has performed as a common carrier for the Western Union Telegraph Company, by refusing the same service to the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company. For we think it is clear that a railroad' company where it acts as a common carrier is bound to serve all the members of the public alike, who apply for service, under like conditions.
• • The contention that the general order of the Railroad Commissioners is unauthorized by law inasmuch as it applies only to the respondent, we' think is unfounded. In the very nature of things such an order could not be made to apply to another railroad company which had not voluntarily performed for some patron, the service described in these proceedings, which is in some respects peculiar, in that it involves the delivery of poles, wires, &c., between stations. But the respondent having voluntarily performed this service for the Western Union Telegraph Company may not deny it to another company applying for similar service under like conditions. / The order of the Railroad Commissioners is a general order, and we think fully authorized by the constitution and Chapter 4700, acts of 1899. Nor is this duty affected by the fact that the service was performed for the Western Union Telegraph Company under an agreement or contract. The rates prescribed in this general order for the services to be rendered are general in their nature, and apply to all telegraph, and telephone companies which seek to have the services performed and are not challenged on the ground of unreasonableness. The order, therefore, is in conformity with the views of this court as expressed in the opinion heretofore rendered at this term between the same parties. We refer to the authorities therein cited.
The demurrer is overruled and the respondent is required to answer the alternative writ within fourteen days from the filing of this opinion.
Shackleford, O. J., Cockrell, Whitfield, Taylor and Parkhill, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 90 Fla. 721 (Fla. 1925)…State ex rel. Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 51 Fla. 578, 40 South. Rep. 875; 10 C. J. 471; [*744] State ex rel. Railroad Com’rs. v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 64 Fla. 112, 59 South. Rep. 385; State ex rel. Ellis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 51 Fla. 543, 41 South. Rep. 529. It is clear that under the statutes, as shown in the statement, the Railroad Commissioners have authority to make just and reasonable rules and regulations to be observed by the .terminal company in affording appropriate facili…1 / 2
-
State v. The Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 52 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1906)…hin the scope or contemplation of the act of the Legislature creating said Commission. The demurrer raises the question of the sufficiency of the return as a defense to the writ. In the opinion on the demurrer to the alternative writ in this case, 51 Fla. 543, 41 South. Rep. 529, we said: “The respondent having voluntarily performed this service for the Western Union Telegraph Company may not deny it to another company applying for similar service under like conditions. The order of the Railroad Commissi…1 / 2
-
State v. Wells, 96 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1928)…85; Little Rock, etc. Ry. Co. v. Oppenheimer, 43 S. W. R. 150; 44 L. R. A. 353; Railroad Com’rs v. F. E. C. Ry., 67 Fla. 83, 64 So. R. 443; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Railroad Com’rs, 63 Fla. 491, 58 So. R. 543; State, ex rel. Ellis v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 51 Fla. 543, 41 So. R. 529; 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506; and State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 So. R. 225. See also Indian River Steamboat Co. v. East Coast Transp. Co., 28 Fla. 387, 10 So. R. 480, 29 Am. St. R. 258. The cases just mentioned all…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence