Case Title: Tampa Electric Co. v. WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER ELEC. COOP., INC.

Citation: 122 So. 2d 471

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1960-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
122 So. 2d 471 (1960)
TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., a Nonprofit Florida Corporation, Respondent (Two Cases).

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 24, 1960.
Charles S. Ausley of Ausley, Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, and Sam Bucklew, of Bucklew, Ramsey & Phillips, Tampa, for petitioner.
George C. Dayton, Charlie Luckie, Jr., of Dayton, Dayton & Luckie, Dade City, and J. Lewis Hall, of Hall, Hartwell & Douglass, Tallahassee, for respondents.
HOBSON, Justice.
This litigation involves two consolidated petitions for writs of certiorari on the alleged ground that the District Court's decisions[1] are in direct conflict *472 with this court's decision in the case of St. Joseph Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Southeastern Tel. Co., 1941, 149 Fla. 14, 5 So. 2d 55.
The Second District Court of Appeal's opinion[2] reflects the following pertinent facts:
Being an electric utility cooperative, Withlacoochee is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 366. In the instant cases Tampa Electric obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining Withlacoochee from furnishing electric energy to certain persons in a rural area.
Referring to the foregoing, the majority of the District Court reversed the chancellor's order on the principal ground that under this court's decision in the St. Joseph case, supra, Tampa Electric does not have sufficient standing in a court of equity to bring the instant suits.
Associate Judge Murphree dissented because it was his belief that these cases fell within the exception to the general rule *473 established in the St. Joseph case.[4] He also indicated that the cooperative's action violated the intendments of § 425.04(4), F.S.A. to the direct injury of the private property rights of Tampa Electric.
The following excerpt from the opinion in the St. Joseph case, supra, is pertinent for our consideration in view of the fact that it was and is relied on by both the petitioner and the respondent, as well as being the basis of the District Court's decisions:
The petitioner maintains the activities of Withlacoochee "resulted in damage to the property rights of Tampa Electric by the loss of profits and by the waste and disuse of equipment".
It is our opinion that the complaint in this case sufficiently alleges that the cooperative in these cases has used its preferential economic advantage as a means of extending its service to customers previously being adequately served by Tampa Electric.[5] Such activity exceeds not only the fundamental underlying purpose which motivated the establishment of the rural electrification program,[6] but also it violates the plain language as well as the spirit of Section 425.04, F.S.A. Further, we are in accord with the petitioners and Associate Judge Murphree in their conclusion that the cooperative's activities are tantamount to an unlawful injury or hindrance of Tampa Electric's property rights.
The opinion and decision herein rendered by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is in direct conflict with our decision *474 in the case of St. Joseph Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Southeastern Tel. Co., 1941, 149 Fla. 14, 5 So. 2d 55, in that said court followed the general rule laid down in the St. Joseph case, whereas it should have followed the exception set forth therein. The District Court of Appeal's opinion shows on its face, by paraphrasing the allegations of the complaint, that the exception to the general rule laid down in the St. Joseph case should have been applied to these cases.
The orders of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, to which these petitions for certiorari are directed, should be and are hereby quashed, with directions that said court enter orders consistent with his opinion and remand these cases for further proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C.J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.
[1]  Fla.App., 1959, 115 So. 2d 9 and 17.
[2]  Fla.App., 1959, 115 So. 2d 9.
[3]  Withlacoochee River Electric Coop. v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla.App. 1959, 115 So. 2d 9, 10.
[4]  The rule and its exception may be found in St. Joseph Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Southeastern Tel. Co., 1941, 149 Fla. 14, 5 So. 2d 55, 57 and 58.
[5]  Mere change in ownership or business structure does not mask the fact that Tampa Electric was previously providing adequate service to the precise sites involved.
[6]  It is a matter of common knowledge that the real purpose to be served in the creation of REA was to provide electricity to those rural areas which were not being served by any privately or governmentally owned public utility. It was not intended that REA should be a competitor in those areas in which as a matter of fact electricity is available by application to an existing public utility holding a franchise for the purpose of selling and serving electricity in a described territory.