STATE EX REL. RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, RELATORS,
v.
LIVE OAK, PERRY & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, 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 denied a petition for rehearing in a case involving the Railroad Commissioners' authority to set freight rates and service requirements. The Court clarified that railroad rate orders must be evaluated based on overall profitability across entire traffic classes and routes, not individual commodity shipments.
The Court held that rate orders cannot be attacked by isolating individual commodities or computing costs for particular services; instead, the entire traffic in a commodity class over the entire applicable line must be considered. The order need not ensure profit from every mile or section but only from the overall service rendered.
“An order of the Railroad Commissioners affecting the transporation of a class of commodities in carload lots cannot be attacked by segergafing one item of the commodities included in the order, or computing the costs incurred and revenue derived from hauling a particular commodity a certain distance and showing that the particular service is unprofitable.”
Establishes the core holding that rate orders must be evaluated holistically, not by isolating individual commodities or routes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Railroad Commissioners issued an order affecting the transportation of commodities in carload lots. The Live Oak, Perry & Gulf Railroad Comp…
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.
Per Curiam
A petition was filed for a rehearing by Bespondent upon the following grounds:
“1. This Honorable Court inadvertently failed to consider and decide one of the chief questions presented by respondent’s answer to-the alternative writ and insisted upon in respondent’s brief, to-wit': the right of relators to discriminate, against respondent in favor of other short roads where the same or identical service is to he performed under similar conditions.
“2, This Honorable Court failed to draw the distinction between a railroad’s being entitled to a net profit from every mile, section or part unto which the road might be divided, and a net profit for a set-vice rendered, the question of service only being involved in this case.”
The opinion as filed in this case recites in substance the averments of the Respondent’s answer and quotes the language of the answer as it refers to the alleged discrimination made by Relators between the Respondent and other short roads. The averment of the answer that Relators had no evidence before them which justifies the alleged discrimination we consider was not an issuable averment of fact. If there was any evidence whatever before the Relators on the subject the presumption of reasonableness and justness which obtains in favor of the order, would be supported. The averment of the answer was a mere conclusion of the pleader. He should have stated the facts in his answer sufficient to overcome the presumption of-reasonableness which obtains in favor of the order or have averred .an absence of any evidence whatever upon the subject if it was designed to present the question which the petition alleges we failed to consider. As to the second point the opinion distinctly states that it is not necessary to the validity of the order that a profit-should be assured. from every -mile, section or other part into which the road might be divided.
An order of the Railroad Commissioners affecting the transporation of a -class of commodities in carload lots cannot be attacked by segergafing one item of the commodities included in the order, or computing the costs incurred and revenue derived from hauling a particular commodity a certain distance and showing that the particular service is unprofitable. The entire traffic in the particular class over the entire line to which the order applies must be considered in order to determine whether the order as made was within the power of the Commissioners.
It is unlike the case where a particular service is required by the order to be performed. The petition for rehearing is, therefore, denied.