Bryant v. Lovett

• Decision Date: 22 March 1967
• Docket Number: 34187,Nos. 34186,s. 34186
• Citation: 201 So.2d 720
• Parties: Farris BRYANT, as Governor et al., Appellants, v. Francis LOVETT et al., Appellees. Farris BRYANT, as Governor et al., Appellants, v. P. O. SCHOELLES et al., Appellees, John C. Moore, etc., Intervenor.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 720

201 So.2d 720

Farris BRYANT, as Governor et al., Appellants, v. Francis LOVETT et al., Appellees.

Farris BRYANT, as Governor et al., Appellants, v. P. O. SCHOELLES et al., Appellees, John C. Moore, etc., Intervenor.

Nos. 34186, 34187.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 22, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1967.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Sam Spector and Ira Weinstein, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

Jesse F. Warren, Jr., Tallahassee, and C. H. Bourke Floyd, Apalachicola, for Francis Lovett and others.

M. Howard Williams, Tallahassee, for P. O. Schoelles and others.

Douglass & Booth, Tallahassee, for John C. Moore.

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal from final decrees entered in two cases which have been consolidated. The material facts and governing principles of law applicable to both cases are quite similar and will be treated together herein.

We take jurisdiction of these causes under Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution F.S.A. since the trial court construed a controlling constitutional provision in arriving at its decision as will hereinafter appear, and declared invalid Chapter 61--502, Laws of Florida, as it is applied in this case.

The basic issue in this cause is the present validity of certain 'grants' of exclusive rights to plant and harvest oysters, upon a designated area in the bottom of Apalachicola Bay, St. George Sound and St. Vincent Sound.

The grants in question were made by the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 3293, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1881, entitled

'An Act to Encourage the Planting of Oysters in the Waters of this State, and to Protect the Rights of Owners thereof.'

Sections 1 and 2 of this Act are as follows:--

'Section 1. Any person desiring to plant oysters in the public waters of this State shall apply to the County Commissioners of the county in which the water is situated, setting forth his determination to plant oysters in a certain locality, describing the same as near as may be possible; and the said Commissioners may grant exclusive rights to such person for such locality or any portion thereof, with such boundaries as they may deem proper.

'Section 2. Any person obtaining from the County Commissioners such grant or exclusive right, and shall fail to utilize the same by planting oysters therein within one year thereafter, shall forfeit such grant.'

It also provides:

'Section 7. That all the existing natural or maternal oyster beds in the waters of this State are exempt from the provisions of this Act, and that they remain for the free use of the citizens of this State.'

Pursuant to Chapter 3293, Laws of Florida 1881, portions of which are above set out, the Franklin County Commissioners in or about 1902--1905 made a number of grants to the predecessors in title of the appellees.

In 1961 the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 61--502 by the terms of which, inter alia, all persons asserting any interest in any oyster leases or grants were required to register same with the State Department of Conservation, abide by certain minimal requirements for marking the boundaries thereof and the payment of a rental fee thereon in the amount of fifty cents an acre as prescribed by Section 370.16 F.S. Additionally, the 1961 Act required such persons to abide by the provisions of F.S. Section 370.16 F.S.A. relating to the cultivation of such oyster beds and the forfeiture provisions therein contained. By its terms said Act provided that any grantee failing to comply with its provisions shall suffer his grant to become null and void.

Upon the enactment of the 1961 law, the appellees filed separate suits against the appropriate state agencies, appellants herein, to enjoin the enforcement of the latter Act on the grounds to require them to submit to the requirements, including rental payments imposed by the 1961 Act, would subject them to deprivation of property without just compensation and due process.

By their pleadings, the plaintiffs alleged the doing of all things necessary to the perfection of their rights. Moreover, alleged the plaintiffs, by operation of the provisions of Chapter 6532, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1913, their grants had been confirmed. Section 2 of said Act provides as follows:--

'That all grants prior to June 1, 1913, made in pursuance of heretofore existing laws, where the person, firm or corporation receiving such grant, his heirs or assigns, have bona fide complied with the requirements of said law, be and the same are hereby confirmed as under said law provided for; Provided, * * * the said Shell Fish Commissioner shall investigate all grants heretofore made, and where, in his opinion, the lessee or grantee has not bona fide complied with the law under which he received his grant or lease, he shall report the same to the Commissioner of Agriculture, who is hereby authorized and required to institute legal proceedings to vacate the same, in order to use such lands for the benefit of the public, subject to the same dispositions as other bottoms.'

By its pleadings, the state contended that the grants at issue were presently invalid for the following reasons:--

1. The grants were not executed in the manner required by Section 14, Article IV of the Florida Constitution.

2. The grants are invalid because by the enactment under which they were made, Chapter 3293, Acts of 1881, the Legislature exceeded its power to dispose of sovereign property.

3. The conditions of the grants were violated so as to cause a reverter of the rights granted.

4. The rights acquired by the grantees were extinguished by non-use or abandonment.

5. Much of the area within the boundaries of the several grants consisted of natural or maternal oyster beds which by the express provisions of the 'grant law' were beyond the Board of County Commissioners' power of disposition.

Upon the issues thusly framed, the chancellor, after receiving evidence, both documentary and oral, and hearing arguments thereon, entered his order upon which final decrees were entered in each of the cases holding that Chapter 61--502, Laws of Florida 1961, was invalid insofar as it seeks to divest the plaintiffs of rights which the court held had vested in them without due process and just compensation.

The state's defenses as above set forth were decided against it by the court below except the last one numbered 5 above. As to this last contention by the state the chancellor held that certain portions of the several grants were indeed natural oyster beds as shown by a map or chart of Apalachicola Bay and environs made by one Lieut. Franklin Swift, U.S.N., for the Federal Bureau of Fisheries between November, 1895 and March, 1896. The map was introduced in evidence and is part of the record on appeal. No error is assigned by any of the parties to this appeal respecting the chancellor's ruling on the natural oyster bed issue as resolved below.

We will deal first with the question of whether or not the County Commissioners of Franklin County had the power under the constitution of Florida to make a grant of any part of the sovereignty lands belonging to the state. The people of Florida have always zealously guarded their rights in their sovereignty lands and have made it difficult for their officials to dispose of them without compensation moving to the state. Thus, Section 14 of Article IV, Constitution of Florida, was adopted and provided

'All grants and commissions shall be in the name and under the authority of the State of Florida, sealed with the great seal of the State, signed by the Governor, and countersigned by the Secretary of State.'

The grants here involved were not executed in accordance with the command of this section, and were delivered without compensation to the State, and must therefore be held to be void and ineffectual to convey any interests in the sovereignty lands involved. We do not construe or hold that Section 14 of Article IV, seupra, applies to grants, including deeds and leases, by the State, where there is a valuable consideration flowing to the State for same.

In Perky Properties v. Felton, 113 Fla. 432, 151 So. 892, we recognized that the public policy of this state militates against indiscriminate giveaways of the tidal and submerged lands of the state and the uses thereof where there are absent, appropriate reservations, compensation, or consideration. There we said:--

'The tidal and submerged lands of the state and the uses thereof are held in trust for all the people of the state; and, while private rights in the uses of limited portions of such lands may be granted by the Legislature upon proper terms, reservations, and considerations when the public welfare will thereby be promoted, State (ex...