City of Pensacola v. Walker
| Decision Date | 29 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. F-185,F-185 |
| Citation | 167 So.2d 634 |
| Parties | CITY OF PENSACOLA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Wilmer WALKER et ux., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack S. Graff, of Levin, Askew & Warfield, Pensacola, for appellant.
Philip D. Beall, of Jones, Beall & Sims, Pensacola, for appellees.
Appellees brought suit in the Circuit Court of Escambia County Seeking a decree quieting their title to a strip of land lying between the western boundary of a public street known as Bayou Boulevard in Pensacola, Florida, and the eastern shore of Bayou Texar, a navigable body of water, which strip of land lies directly across Bayou Boulevard from lots owned by appellees in a subdivision known as East Pensacola Heights. From a decree favorable to appellees, appellant has appealed.
Appellant first contends that the strip of land in question was offered for dedication to the public as a public road by the original owners and developers of the subdivision through their recording of a plat of the subdivision, which offer was accepted by the public through use over a long period of time. By reason of the offer and acceptance of the dedication, appellant asserts that the disputed strip of land was not subject to adverse possession by appellees and their predecessors in title as found by the chancellor, therefore, the decree which finds that appellees acquire title to the strip by adverse possession is erroneous and should be reversed.
The recorded plat of the subdivision, by reference to which title to the group of contiguous lots now owned by appellees was acquired, shows the property included therein to be divided into lots and blocks separated by named streets, avenues and boulevards. The plat reflects an unnamed and undesignated strip of land running north and south along the western boundary of the subdivision between the platted lots and blocks on the east, and the meandering shoreline of Bayou Texar on the west. Appellees' predecessors pioneered the settlement of this subdivision, having purchased their property and built their home there in the early months of 1908. At that time few people lived on the immediate area of appellees' home and the wagon trial along the disputed strip and adjacent to the western boundary of appellees' property was infrequently used. The wagon trail became more extensively used with the passage of time until it was finally graded and paved by the county and officially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonifay v. Dickson
...use by the public or maintenance and improvement by the proper authorities of part of the land dedicated. 8 In City of Pensacola v. Walker, 167 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), this court noted that a wagon trail existed along the disputed strip in the early 1900's and that as it became more ......
-
Bonifay v. Garner, BM-126
...the county and city manifested an acceptance of the offer of dedication of the entire strip. Thus, the holding in City of Pensacola v. Walker, 167 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) was in error in finding no public dedication of the But we decline to overturn Walker in its entirety as title in ......
-
Bonifay v. Garner
...can be acquired through adverse possession independently of the waterfront land itself. Appellee asserts that City of Pensacola v. Walker, 167 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), involves similar facts and supports his claim of adverse possession. However, the facts in Walker indicate that the t......
-
Schwartz v. Appleby
...having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the decree of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. City of Pensacola v. Walker (Fla.App.1964), 167 So.2d 634; Kiser v. Howard (Fla.App.1961), 133 So.2d 746; Euse v. Gibbs (Fla.1951), 49 So.2d WIGGINTON, C.J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ......