Arundel Corp. v. Griffin

Decision Date20 February 1925
Citation89 Fla. 128,103 So. 422
PartiesARUNDEL CORPORATION et al. v. GRIFFIN et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; E. C. Davis, Judge.

Action by W. D. Griffin and another against the Arundel Corporation and others. After order overruling demurrer to declaration and sustaining demurrer to plea to amended declaration judgment was for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district is agency of state, and authority conferred on it is exercised for state. The board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district composed of the Governor and four state officers, is an agency of the state, and the authority conferred upon the board is exercised for the state, and not for a subdivision of the state, or for any private purpose or company. It has been denominated 'a public quasi corporation,' not a quasi public corporation.

Board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district is not liable in tort for damages. The statutory provision that the board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district, a state agency, shall have 'all the powers of a body corporate, including the power to sue and be sued,' does not render the board liable in tort for damages. By making the board amenable to suit, the statute does not impose liability for a cause of action that is not given by law.

Damage to property without just compensation not expressly forbidden; overflowing lands through drainage operations by board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district held not taking without just compensation; provision for remedy for injury by due course of law held not to apply to flooding of land by board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district. Unlike provisions in other states, the Florida Constitution does not expressly forbid 'damage' to property without just compensation.

COUNSEL

Glenn Terrell and J. B. Johnson, both of Tallahassee, for plaintiffs in error.

McCune Weidling & Hiaasen, of Fort Lauderdale, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The amended declaration herein, filed by W. D. Griffin and T. M. Griffin, purports to state a cause of action against the Arundel Corporation, a corporation, and the board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district. The first count sets up the particulars of an alleged concerted action and a joint tort by the defendants by causing the plaintiffs' lands to be overflowed with water (following unusually heavy rainfalls), in negligently prosecuting drainage operations in the Everglades of the state, while the second court contains similar allegations in stating a taking of the plaintiffs' lands by such overflow. A demurrer to the declaration was overruled, and a demurrer to a plea to the amended declaration was sustained in a single order. This order is assigned as error upon a writ of error taken by the defendants to a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiffs.

If the demurrer to the declaration should have been sustained, the subsequent proceedings were improper.

The real questions presented are whether the board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district may as such board be sued in tort for the damages alleged, and whether the declaration shows a taking of plaintiffs' land for public purposes without compensation, the acts complained of having been done under the authority and direction of the board.

Sections 1161, 1162, and 1163, Revised General Statutes of 1920, creating the 'board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district,' and defining their powers and duties, are as follows:

'1161. The Governor, the comptroller, the state treasurer, the Attorney General and the commissioner of agriculture of the state of Florida, and their successors in office, are hereby constituted the governing board of said district, and shall be designated the 'Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District,' with all the powers of a body corporate, including the power to sue and he sued by said name in any court of law or equity, to make contracts and to adopt and use a common seal and alter the same at pleasure, to hold, buy and convey such personal or real property as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this article, to appoint such agents and employees as the business of the board may require, and to borrow money and to issue bonds therefor, as hereinafter provided, to enable the said board to carry out the provisions of this article.
'1162. The said board is hereby authorized and empowered to establish and construct a system of canals, drains, levees, dikes, dams, locks and reservoirs of such dimensions, depth and proportions as in the judgment of the said board is deemed advisable to drain and reclaim the lands within said drainage district, and to maintain such canals, drains, levees, dikes, dams, locks and reservoirs in such manner as said board shall deem most advantageous and to carry out such works as in the judgment of the said board will be advisable for harmonizing such navigation as may be incidental upon the works of drainage, or in connection with the works constructed for drainage purposes; to provide for and requlate the collection of a reasonable schedule of tolls for the use of the said canals and locks, all tolls heretofore collected for the use thereof being by this act legalized and validated; to regulate the speed of all water craft or boats of any kind plying on or using the said canals and waterways; to prescribe regulations for the construction of docks and landings along and bridges or ferries across the said canals; and to do and perform any and all other acts which in the judgment of the said board are conducive to the upkeep and betterment of the same. Said board is hereby authorized and empowered to clean out, straighten, widen, change the course and flow, alter or deepen any ditch, drain, river, water course, pond, lake, creek or natural stream in or out of said district that may be deemed necessary by said board to be done to facilitate the drainage and reclamation of the territory in said district; to construct and maintain main and lateral canals or ditches; to construct such levees, dikes, sluices, revetments, reservoirs, pumping stations and other works and improvements deemed necessary to preserve and maintain the works in said district; to construct any bridge or roadway over any levees, embankments, public highways, railroad right of way, track, grade, fill or cut, or across any stream or pond that may be necessary to facilitate the work of draining and reclaiming the territory or any part thereof embraced in said district; said board shall have the power and authority to hold, control, and acquire by donation or purchase for the use of the district, any real or personal property, to condemn any lands, easement, railroad right of way, in or out of said district, for a right of way for any canal, ditch, drain or reservoir, on for material to be used in constructing and maintaining said works and improvements for draining, protecting and reclaiming the lands in said district.
'1163. That the said board is hereby authorized and empowered to exercise the right of eminent domain, and may condemn for the use of said district any and all lands, easements, rights of way, riparian rights and property rights of every description required for the public purposes and powers of said board, as herein granted, and may enter upon, take and use such land as it may deem necessary for such purposes, pending condemnation proceedings.'

The 'board' created by the above-quoted statute is an agency of the state, and the authority conferred upon the board is exercised for the state, and not for a subdivision of the state, or for any private purpose or company. It has been denominated 'a public quasi corporation,' not a quasi public corporation. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Com'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 77 Fla. 742, 82 So. 346.

The state cannot be sued at all without its consent. 25 R. C. L. 412. A county is not liable in tort for damages, though it has express power to 'sue and be sued in the name of the county.' Section 1493, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920; Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 So. 372; Owen v. Baggett, 77 Fla. 582, 81 So. 888. In Brumley v. Dorner, 78 Fla. 495, 83 So. 912, the suit was for an injunction to prevent a permanent injury to land. The 'board' is given 'all the powers of a body corporate, including the power to sue and be sued.' This does not render the board liable in tort for damages, since the board is a state agency acting only for the state. 25 R. C. L. 413. If a state cannot be sued without its consent, and a county is not liable in tort for damages, the law certainly does not authorize an action in tort for damages against the board, a state agency, in the absence of a valid statute permitting it that accords with section 22, article 3, Constitution. See 19 C.J. 709; L. R. A. 1918B, 1010, notes; 13 A. L. R. 1276, notes; 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 189; 36 Cyc. 919; Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1038, notes; 25 C.J. 742.

The board is a state agency created by statute, and it has only a drainage fund that is dependent upon taxation and is required to be used for designated public purposes. The use of such fund to pay damages for torts is not contemplated by the statute. By making the board amenable to suit, the statute does not impose liability for a cause of action that is not given by law. The board, a state agency with limited powers is not liable for damages in this case under the existing law, even if the injury complained of is consequent upon the general drainage operations of the state, and such injury was in fact not proximately caused by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Department of Transp. v. Burnette
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 1980
    ...with "merely impair(ing) its use." See Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d 663, 669 (Fla.1979); Arundel Corp. v. Griffin, 89 Fla. 128, 103 So. 422 (1925); Kendry v. State Road Department, 213 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), cert. den., 222 So.2d 752 (Fla.1969); Elliott v......
  • Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. SARASOTA-FRUITVILLE D. DIST.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 14, 1958
    ...Rabin v. Lake Worth Drainage Dist., Fla., 82 So.2d 353, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 958, 76 S.Ct. 348, 100 L.Ed. 833; Arundel Corp. v. Griffin, 89 Fla. 128, 103 So. 422, is liable to a Railway on an indemnity-hold-harmless agreement in a canal right of way easement granted by the Railway 28 ......
  • State v. Love
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1930
    ... ... form no part of the state government (see Arundel Corp ... v. Griffin, 89 Fla. 128, 103 So. 422); but an act ... dealing with the powers and ... ...
  • Florida Power Corp. v. City of Tallahassee
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1944
    ...acts of God or cause or causes beyond the control of the power company. See Moon v. Wilson, 100 Fla. 791, 130 So. 25; Arundel Corp. v. Griffin, 89 Fla. 128, 103 So. 422; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 463, p. Legal justification for nonperformance of a contract is treated in 12 Am.Jur. 939, thusly......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT