Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass'n

• Decision Date: 04 June 1910
• Citation: 52 So. 802,59 Fla. 447
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. FLORIDA CHAUTAUQUA ASS'N et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

52 So. 802

59 Fla. 447

BROWN et al. v. FLORIDA CHAUTAUQUA ASS'N et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

June 4, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walton County; J. E. Wolfe, Judge.

Bill by Minnie I. Brown and husband against the Florida Chautauqua Association and others. Decree of dismissal, and complainants appeal. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The unlawful obstruction of a public highway is a public nuisance that may be redressed by appropriate judicial proceedings at the instance of proper governmental authorities.

In order to secure an efficient administration of the law for the benefit of the public and to avoid the evil of many suits to accomplish one purpose, public wrongs are redressed at the suit of proper officials, and individuals are not permitted to maintain separate judicial proceedings to redress a wrong that is public in its nature unless the individual suffers or is threatened with some special, particular, or peculiar injury growing out of the public wrong.

If a public nuisance causes special or peculiar injury to an individual different in kind and not merely in degree from the injury to the public at large, and the injury is substantial in its nature, the individual may have his civil remedy. If the remedy at law is inadequate, equity will afford appropriate relief.

If an unlawful obstruction in a public highway merely interferes with the right of passage that is common to all, and no individual rights are specially or peculiarly injured, relief should be had through the proper public authorities.

Any person whose property rights are specially injured by an unlawful obstruction in a public highway may have the aid of a court of equity in removing the obstruction when the remedy at law is inadequate.

In proceedings brought by an individual to enjoin an obstruction to a public highway, the complainant should distinctly allege facts showing the special and peculiar injury complained of with sufficient clearness to enable the court to determine whether the complainant is entitled to maintain the suit.

Where there is equity stated, a general demurrer should be overruled, even though the allegations are not full and complete.

A mere allegation of irreparable injury not sustained by the allegations of facts will not ordinarily warrant the granting of relief by injunction; but, where it appears that an action at law will not afford adequate redress, equitable relief may be had.

Where it is alleged that the complainant owns a lot bounded on a street that is obstructed, upon which lot a hotel business is conducted, that the obstruction of the street prevents direct passage from the hotel to the depot, necessitating two crossings of a railroad track or else a more circuitous route in reaching the passenger depot from the hotel, resulting in irreparable damage to the hotel business and decreasing the value of the property, a special, peculiar, and substantial injury to the complainant is shown for which he may maintain a suit for appropriate relief.

Where an individual sustains special substantial injury in his property rights by an obstruction of a public highway, he may have equitable relief where the remedy at law is inadequate.

COUNSEL William W. Flournoy, for appellants.

Daniel Campbell & Son and Blount & Blount & Carter, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD C.J.

The appellants brought a bill in equity for the removal of obstructions in Baldwin avenue, a public highway in the town of De Funiak Springs, Fla. Demurrers to the bill on the ground that the plaintiffs have not stated such a case as entitles them to the relief prayed were sustained, and, no amendment being made, the bill of complaint was dismissed. An appeal was taken by the complainants. The only questions argued are as to the right of the complainants to maintain the suit for the relief prayed. A dedication of the locus in quo as a street and its obstruction are stated, and to support a right of action in the complainants it is alleged that they own and operate a hotel situated upon a lot numbered 674, bounded on the north by Baldwin avenue, on the east by Crescent street, and on the west by Eleventh street that a railroad track runs 'about the center of Baldwin avenue and traverses the same throughout its length from east to west'; that a 'part of Baldwin avenue which lies east of the front of said lot 674 and south of the said railroad track to the passenger depot of the said railroad company has been inclosed'; that such inclosure 'prevents the passage of the public and of complainants thereover all of that part of Baldwin avenue * * * east of the front of said lot' 674 towards the passenger depot; 'that because of said fence the right of the public to enjoy an easement over that portion of said avenue has been, since the erection thereof, prevented, and the right of complainants to enjoy said easement has been also, thereby prevented, which has been of great damage to the public and of great and irreparable damage to your complainants, preventing, as it does as aforesaid, the use of said avenue for a right of way to and from its hotel east to the depot, and impedes the management and conducting of said hotel business to the passenger depot of the said railroad that because of said obstruction said complainants are forced at much inconvenience to cross the railroad at the juncture of Baldwin avenue and Crescent street, * * * pass to the north of said railroad, and then recross the said railroad 400 feet east of the passenger depot, or pass to the south through Crescent street around through Live Oak street, then back through Wright avenue, * * * and then through Chipley Park * * * over a right of way that has been made through necessity because of the obstruction of Wright avenue;' 'that because of said obstruction of said Baldwin avenue, therefore, your complainants suffer, not only great and irreparable damage and inconvenience in the management, conducting, and operating of their hotel business, but also said obstruction is of a direct and material damage to the value of their said property, decreasing, as it does, the value of said property, because, furthermore, said obstruction not only prevents the enjoyment by the public of the dedicated right of way and public easement, and prevents, also, as aforesaid, the passage and access of complainant and public and enjoyment of the right of way and easement over that part of said Baldwin avenue from said lot east to said passenger depot.' As to some of the obstructions it is alleged specially that 'because thereof your complainants suffer great and irreparable injury to their said hotel business and to the value of their said proeprty and lot' 674. This allegation is in substance repeated several times in specific and in general terms.

The unlawful obstruction of a public highway is a public nuisance that may be redressed...