Summary
In Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. King, Fla. 1951, 51 So.2d 723, we recognized the well settled rule that we will not undertake to reweigh and reevaluate evidence presented to an administrative agent whose order is under examination but that in instances where the commission fails or omits to construe or interpret correctly the legal effect of the testimony, when considered in its entirety, on petition for certiorari, we will give to such testimony the reasonable interpretation that the commission should have given. The other two cases above cited support this doctrine.
Summary of this case from Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. KingOpinion
April 6, 1951.
Charles Cook Howell, Wilmington, N.C., Leroy B. Giles and David W. Hedrick, Orlando, for petitioners.
Lewis W. Petteway, Guyte P. McCord, Jr., and D. Fred McMullen, Tallahassee, for respondents.
It appears by the record in this case that the Town of Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, is situated on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 9.5 miles south of the City of Sanford and 5.5 miles north of Maitland. The town is closely connected with U.S. Highway No. 92. Also the Orlando-Sanford Highway passes through the town. One of the bus companies maintains a schedule of common carrier in the form of twelve passenger buses daily each way through or near the Town of Longwood.
For the past several years the Atlantic Coast Line has maintained an agency twelve months of the year in Longwood. For the fiscal year prior to February, 1950, the Coast Line sold fifty-eight passenger tickets for the total sum of $49.07 through the Longwood agency. The freight forwarded through this office for the period produced revenue in the sum of $98.67; car load freight received through the agency produced $2,456.87, and less than car load shipments raised the revenue in the sum of $595.06. The agent's annual salary at Longwood amounts to $3,476.45. The total amount of the Coast Line's revenue through the Longwood station for the annual period amounted to the sum of $3,233.07.
The Atlantic Coast Line applied to the Florida Railroad and Utilities Commission for an order permitting or allowing it to close its agency at Longwood during the period from June 1st to October 31st, inclusive, of each year. Pursuant to the notice a hearing was had, testimony taken on the application then before the Railroad Commission, and thereafter an order was entered denying the application. On petition for writ of certiorari the order entered by the Railroad Commission is presented for review by this Court. The closing of the Longwood agency from June 1st to October 31st of each year, it is admitted, will not affect, except incidentally, the passengers, freight and Express services heretofore rendered by the Coast Line. The point is made that a high percentage of the business transacted through the Longwood office occurs from November until the following June.
Some six hundred citizens and residents of the Town of Longwood and vicinity signed petitions requesting the Florida Railroad Commission to enter an order denying the application of the Coast Line to close the agency. These petitions were placed about the voting booths and were signed when the electors came to the polls to cast their votes on election day. These petitions fail to recite or state reasons or a cause for opposing the closing period. Witnesses testifying before the Commission pointed out that the Town of Longwood had about 700 inhabitants and a trade population of about 6,000 people. These witnesses fail to contradict the testimony of the applicant to the effect (1) that the agency will be kept open during the business season; (2) that freight, passenger, and Express services will be rendered during the closed period; (3) that adequate station service is available at stations north and south of Longwood; (4) that transportation service is maintained at Longwood by the bus companies; (5) that the salary paid the agent at Longwood exceeds the amount of the revenues.
It is established law that this Court will not interfere with conclusions reached by the Railroad Commission as to factual matters, but in instances where the Railroad Commission fails or omits to correctly construe or interpret the legal effect of the testimony, when considered in its entirety, then this Court, on petition for certiorari, will give to such testimony the interpretation that should have been given by the Railroad Commission. See Florida Motor Lines, Inc., v. Railroad Comm'rs, 100 Fla. 538, 129 So. 876.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order denying the closing order is quashed, with directions for further consideration not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, ADAMS, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.