Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corporation
Citation | 93 Fla. 888,112 So. 841 |
Parties | FREED et al. v. MIAMI BEACH PIER CORPORATION. |
Decision Date | 15 April 1927 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Action by Estella J. Freed and husband against the Miami Beach Pier Corporation for an injunction. From a judgment of dismissal complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Lands below high-water mark of navigable waters became state's property, held for public, subject to federal regulation of navigation (Act Cong. March 3, 1845 [5 Stat. 742]). Upon the admission of the state of Florida 'into the Union on equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever,' under the act of Congress approved March 3 1845 (5 Stat. 742), the lands within the territorial limits of the state below ordinary high-water marks of the ocean and gulf and other navigable waters became the property of the state by virtue of its sovereignty. Such lands are held, not for ordinary purposes of proprietary dominion, but for lawful and appropriate public purposes for the benefit of the people of the state, subject to the power of Congress under the federal Constitution to regulate navigation and commerce.
Riparian owners on navigable waters have right of access, with right to bathe, fish, and navigate, subject to governmental regulation. In addition to the rights accorded by the common law under the doctrine of accretion, alluvion, and reliction (in so far as the doctrine is consistent with the laws of the state), riparian or littoral proprietors, who own to ordinary high-water mark of the ocean or gulf or other navigable waters, have common-law rights in the adjacent waters such as access to the waters with the right to bathe, fish, and navigate in the waters, subject to lawful regulation by the sovereign state in the interest of the public, and subject to the authority of Congress as to commerce and navigation.
Riparian owners on navigable waters have right, with state's consent, to erect wharves, subject to state and federal regulation. Riparian or littoral owners to ordinary high-water mark on the ocean or gulf or other navigable waters have, by the common law, a qualified right with the consent or acquiescence of the state to erect wharves or piers or docks in front of the riparian holdings to facilitate access to and the use of the navigable waters subject to lawful state regulation and to the dominant powers of Congress.
Wharves piers, or docks erected without authority may be removed as purprestures, or, if becoming nuisance, may be removed or abated. If wharves or piers or docks are erected in navigable waters without due authority, they may be removed as purprestures, or, if they are or become a nuisance or are harmful to the rights of the public, they may be removed or abated by due course of law.
Riparian owner's rights to remedy against encroachments by authorized structures on lands below high-water mark may be waived by laches. Where, under proper authority, structures or objects are put upon lands below high-water mark of the ocean or gulf or other navigable waters, the rights of adjoining riparian owners and other persons as well as the rights of the public must be observed in exercising the duly acquired privilege to so use the land below high-water mark, and any substantial encroachment upon the rights of others may be remedied by timely and appropriate procedure in due course of law at the instance of proper parties, but the rights of individuals to remedy may be waived by undue delay or laches in seeking a remedy.
Appropriate rules for ascertaining shore lines and boundary lines must be applied to each case in adjudicating rights of riparian owners. The shore line and the channel or line of general navigability may not run in the same direction so as to make the lines practically parallel, and the boundary lines of lands that extend to the shore line may not run at right angles with the shore line or with the channel of the navigable waters. These conditions present questions as to the rights of riparian or littoral owners that require the ascertainment and application of appropriate rules to particular facts in each case as it is presented and developed for adjudication.
Riparian rights do not necessarily extend according to land boundaries and do not always extend at right angles with shore line. Riparian rights do not necessarily extend into the waters according to land boundary lines, nor do such rights, under all conditions, extend at right angles with the shore line.
Adjoining riparian owner, not acting promptly, held not entitled to enjoin authorized erection of pier not materially impeding access, though obstructing view. The erection of a pier by a riparian lot owner upon submerged lands of the state, not at right angle with the shore line of the lots, will not be enjoined at the suit of an adjoining lot owner when the pier does not materially obstruct or impede access to the adjoining riparian lot, though the pier does obstruct distinct view, where complainant did not promptly act while large expenditures were being made in the construction of the pier under governmental authority.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Will H. Price, Judge.
T. E. Price and Harold Kassewitz, both of Miami, for appellants.
Shipp, Evans & Kline, of Miami, for appellee.
The bill of complaint herein filed May 6, 1926, in the lower court by appellants here, alleges in effect that complainants are the owners of lot 6 of block 112 of Ocean Beach, addition No. 4, in Dade county, Fla.; that the defendant corporation claims a leasehold interest in lots 7 and 8, block 112, of Ocean Beach, addition No. 4; that defendant on or about the 1st day of February, 1926, did that the defendant obtained from the city of Miami Beach the following:
That the defendant 'did on or about the 27th day of November, A. D. 1925, apply to the War Department of the United States of America for permission to erect said ocean pier, and did on or about the said day and year receive a waiver of objections or permit from the War Department of the United States of America according to the statutes of the United States of America in such case made and provided'; that complainants 'have caused to be erected upon their said property a casino and dance pavilion, and that they are engaged in the operation of the same as such; that the principal value of said property is caused by reason of its accessibility to the ocean; that the erection of said pilings and pier will tend to greatly impair and depreciate the value of said property.'
The prayer is for 'an interlocutory decree restraining and enjoining the respondent, Miami Beach Pier Corporation, its officers and servants, employees, agents, and all persons acting or claiming to act by, through, or under said respondent, from erecting further pilings upon the submerged lands of your orators, or from leaving the said pilings already erected in front of the lands of your orators upon said submerged lands or from using the said pilings while the same are erected upon the submerged lands lying in front of the submerged lands of your orators and from in any way encroaching upon said submerged lands of your orators; that in a final hearing injunction may be made perpetual; that a decree be entered requiring the respondent to compensate your...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Co.
......Trammell and. O. D. Batchelor, both of Miami, for appellants. . . S. P. Robineau and ... grantor, the Alton Beach Realty Company, on August 6, 1920,. by the trustees of the ... wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead,. jetty, or ...See State ex rel. Buford v. City of Tampa, supra; Freed v. Miami Beach Pier. Corp., 93 Fla. 888, 112 So. 841, 52 ... the authority of the government to which the corporation is. amenable, has the salutary effect of assuring the ......
-
De Huy v. Osborne
...... . . F. W. Pope, of Daytona Beach, and Landis, Fish & Hull and Erskine. W. Landis, all of De ... performance. Thus, in Hotel Halcyon Corp. v. Miami Real. Estate Co., 89 Fla. 156, 103 So. 403, a period of ...Jones, 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854. See, also,. Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corp. (Fla.) 112 So. 841,. 52 A. L. ......
-
5F, LLC v. Dresing
...Hayes v. Bowman, 91 So.2d 795 (Fla.1957), Williams v. Guthrie, 102 Fla. 1047, 137 So. 682 (1931), and Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corp., 93 Fla. 888, 112 So. 841 (1927), for the principle that as a matter of law, the Dresings, as riparian owners, had a common law right to construct the pier a......
-
Hayes v. Bowman
...Fla. 1047, 137 So. 682; Holland v. Ft. Pierce Financing & Construction Co., 157 Fla. 649, 27 So.2d 76; Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corporation, 93 Fla. 888, 112 So. 841, 52 A.L.R. 1177; McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund, Fla., 90 So.2d At the risk of repeating a number of rules heret......