Arundel Corp. v. Griffin
Decision Date | 20 February 1925 |
Citation | 89 Fla. 128,103 So. 422 |
Parties | ARUNDEL CORPORATION et al. v. GRIFFIN et al. |
Court | Florida 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
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.
Glenn Terrell and J. B. Johnson, both of Tallahassee, for plaintiffs in error.
McCune Weidling & Hiaasen, of Fort Lauderdale, for defendants in error.
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:
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-
Department of Transp. v. Burnette
...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.
...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
... ... 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
...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......