Bridgehead Land Co. v. Hale
| Decision Date | 20 December 1940 |
| Parties | BRIDGEHEAD LAND CO., for Use and Benefit of RIVER'S EDGE, Inc. v. HALE et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1941.
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Lee County; George W. Whitehurst, Judge.
Action of ejectment by the Bridgehead Land Company, for the use and benefit of River's Edge, Incorporated, against Arthur B Hale, E. A. McColsky, John Hughey Faulk, Brooks W. Bateman and James W. Perkins, respectively, chairman and members of and constituting the State Road Department of the State of Florida, to secure possession of certain lands. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
M. A. Rosin, of Arcadia, for plaintiff in error.
Richard P. Daniel, of Jacksonville, for defendants in error.
In October, 1929, Bridgehead Land Company conveyed to the State of Florida for the use of the State Road Department a one hundred foot easement across Government Lot One, Section Eleven, Township Forty-Four South, Range 24 East, the said lands being on the north bank of and extending to the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County which was the northern boundary of Fort Myers.
In 1930-31, the State Road Department constructed the Tamiami Trail over this easement to the bank of the river and built what is known as Edison Bridge, one and one-quarter miles long spanning the river, the fill or approaches to the bridge on northside being 260 feet wide and 1,500 feet long and were made by filling the river from the bank to the bridge. The State Road Department constructed a sixteen-foot concrete highway over the fill, planted rows of palm trees along the embankment, built fences to keep off the cattle, mowed the grass and otherwise kept the approaches in good condition.
In January, 1937, the plaintiff in error as plaintiff below brought an action of ejectment against defendants in error to secure possession of a portion of the foregoing lands. By stipulation, the case was tried before the Court without a jury. At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony defendants moved for an instructed verdict which the Court announced that it would grant. Plaintiff took non suit to which this writ of error was prosecuted.
The motion for directed verdict was predicated on the following grounds: (1) The fill was constructed on the bed of the Caloosahatchee River on lands vested in the City of Fort Myers by Chapter 6962, Acts of 1915. (2) All title, right, and interest in the lands in question was vested in the State Road Department by Chapter 17307, Acts of 1935. (3) The lands in question were dedicated to the State Road Department by a plat duly executed and recorded by the plaintiff. (4) Plaintiff failed to show title subject to recovery by ejectment. And (5) plaintiff's claim is barred by laches.
After a careful examination of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the motion for directed verdict was good on at least three of the grounds relied on. At the outset, the easement carried the right of way to 'mean low tide of the Caloosahatchee River'. From this point, the fill was made on the bed of the river to the concrete portion of the bridge and the evidence fails to show title in the plaintiff in error to any lands beyond low tide. Being an action in ejectment, the burden was on the plaintiff to show that its riparian rights were violated but the evidence fails to do this.
In addition to claiming riparian ownership, plaintiff in error rests its case primarily on the invalidity of Chapter 6962, Acts of 1915, and Chapter 17307, Acts of 1935, it being contended that its riparian rights under the 1915 act were violated.
On this point, it is sufficient to say that Chapter 6962 vested the submerged lands in question in the City of Fort Myers. Chapter 791 of the Acts of 1856, as amended by Chapter 8537 Acts of 1921, vested a qualified fee in the said lands to plaintiff in error, but at no time prior to this litigation had it filled in or otherwise taken steps to perfect any right offered under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pandula v. Fonseca
-
State Road Dept. v. Lewis, 33172
...thereof theretofore constructed by the counties and the State Road Department and which are being used. In Bridgehead Land Co. v. Hale (1941), 145 Fla. 394, 199 So. 361, 363, in considering the operation and validity of the statute, this court 'We find no merit to this assault but, on the o......
- Standard Oil Co. v. Lee
-
City of Eustis v. Firster
...it did. See the cases of Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corporation, 1927, 93 Fla. 888, 112 So. 841, 52 A.L.R. 1177; Bridgehead Land Co., etc. v. Hale, 1941, 145 Fla. 389, 199 So. 361; and Tampa Southern R. Co. v. Nettles, 1921, 82 Fla. 2, 89 So. Reversed. KANNER, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur. ...