Title: Bruce's Juices v. King

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

61 So. 2d 175 (1952)
BRUCE'S JUICES, Inc. et al.
v.
KING et al.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.
July 18, 1952.
Rehearing Denied October 14, 1952.
Hall & Farnsworth, Tampa, for appellants.
Lewis W. Petteway, Tallahassee, for Florida R. & Public Utilities Commission.
John M. Allison of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for Central Truck Lines, Inc.
Milam, McIlvaine, Carroll & Wattles and Wayne K. Ramsey, Jr., Jacksonville, for Great Southern Trucking Co., appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., and FUTCH, Associate Justice, concur.
ROBERTS, Justice.
This is an appeal to review a final decree of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, in Chancery. The suit was prosecuted by Bruce's Juices, Inc., together with certain intervenors joining later, against the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, to determine and protect by injunction, an arrangement whereby plaintiffs below used certain trucks in the operation of their business without authorization *176 from the defendants, who are appellees here. The latter contend that the arrangement was an unauthorized use and sought relief by injunction to prevent it. After extensive pleading, stipulation and a pre-trial conference, the issues were made up and the cause came on for trial before one of the Judges of said Court, who personally heard the witnesses.
At the conclusion of the trial a final judgment was entered which set forth in detail the history and determination of facts, pertinent parts of which are as follows:
After a discussion of the questions involved, the Court further stated:
"In the case of United States v. La Tuff Transfer Service, D.C., 95 F. Supp. 375, 381, the Court uses the following language:
The injunction contained in the final decree was later amended by adding the following:
The testimony amply supports the findings of fact. Little needs to be added to the foregoing opinion of the trial Court and it is now adopted as a part of the opinion of this Court.
The case falls within the rule announced in Public Service Commission v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 219 Ark. 553, 244 S.W.2d 147, 149. The Arkansas Court, in disapproving a comparable arrangement, said:
The decision of the lower court has been previously affirmed by this Court without opinion and a petition for rehearing has been requested by appellant.
For the reasons above stated the rehearing should be denied.
SEBRING, C.J., and MATHEWS, J., and FUTCH, Associate Justice, concur.