Astca Inv. Co. v. Lake County

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Astca Inv. Co. v. Lake County, 86 Fla. 639, 98 So. 824 (Fla. 1922)
• Decision Date: 15 December 1922
• Parties: ASTCA INV. CO. et al. v. LAKE COUNTY et al.

98 So. 824

86 Fla. 639

ASTCA INV. CO. et al. v. LAKE COUNTY et al.

Florida Supreme Court

December 15, 1922

Suit by the Astca Investment Company against the County of Lake and others. From an order denying a temporary restraining order plaintiff appeals. Restraining order and injunction issued to remain in force pending further order of Supreme Court.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Supreme Court may preserve by injunction corpus of property pending determination of appeal on merits. Where an appeal is duly taken from an order denying a temporary restraining order to prevent the destruction of bearing citrus trees for the purpose of constructing a public highway and it is duly made to appear to the Supreme Court that the growing citrus trees are of such a nature and peculiar value that in order to preserve the essential nature, value, and usefulness of the land, until the merits of the appeal can be adjudicated, the trees should not be destroyed or removed, this court by virtue of the power conferred by section 5 of article 5 of the state Constitution to issue 'all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction,' may grant an appropriate restraining order to preserve the corpus of the property pending the determination of the appeal.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake County; C. O. Andrews, Judge.

COUNSEL

Alex. St. Clair-Abrams, of Jacksonville, for appellants.

T. G Futch, of Leesburg, and Duncan & Hamlin, of Eustis, for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

An appeal having been entered herein from an order denying a temporary restraining order to prevent the defendants from entering upon or cutting any bearing citrus trees through the grove upon the land described in the bill of complaint for the purpose of constructing a public highway and it appearing to the court that the growing citrus trees upon the land in controversy are of such a nature and peculiar value that in order to preserve the essential nature, value, and usefulness of the land, until the merits of the appeal can be adjudicated, the trees should not be destroyed or removed, therefore it is, by virtue of the power of this court conferred by section 5 of article 5 of the state Constitution to issue 'all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction,' hereby considered, ordered, and decreed that the defendants their successors, agents, and employees, are hereby restrained and enjoined from entering upon or cutting any bearing citrus trees in the grove upon lands of the Astca Investment Company, and from entering upon or cutting through the lands of the complainant Alex. St. Clair-Abrams, which lands of said two complainants are described as follows:

'Beginning at the southwest corner of section fifteen (15) of township nineteen (19) south of range twenty-six (26) east, and

...