Consolidated Gas Co. of Florida v. City Gas Co. of Florida
Citation | 447 So.2d 351 |
Decision Date | 06 March 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 82-2676,82-2676 |
Parties | CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole and William J. Dunaj and Philip A. Allen, III, Miami, for appellant.
Steel, Hector & Davis and Arthur J. England, Jr. and Nancy E. Swerdlow, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
We affirm the judgment under review entered in favor of City Gas Company of Florida upon holdings that (1) the agreement between the developer and Consolidated Gas Company of Florida, which (a) gave to Consolidated "an exclusive franchise" to "install and maintain gas tanks, gas lines, appliances and appurtenances" in the developed subdivision did not create an easement or property right in the land enforceable by Consolidated against City Gas Company, see Colen v. Sunhaven Homes, Inc., 98 So.2d 501 (Fla.1957); Leonard v. Baylen Street Wharf Co., 59 Fla. 547, 52 So. 718 (1910); St. Joe Natural Gas Co. v. City of Ward Ridge, 265 So.2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); North Dade Water Co. v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 114 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); G.W. Thompson, Thompson On Real Property § 295 at 644 (1980 replacement); see generally Loxahatchee Recreation, Inc. v. Harrison, 367 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and (b) gave to Consolidated a "perpetual right-of-way easement" did not create an "exclusive right-of-way easement," see Holbrook v. Telesio, 225 Cal.App. 152, 37 Cal.Rptr. 153 (1964) ( ); see also Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So.2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. City of Miami, 140 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); and (2) in the absence of an easement specifically and clearly stated to be exclusive, City Gas Company of Florida, a public utility granted statutory easement rights, is privileged to use the servient land in any manner not inconsistent with the limited use vested in the easement owner, cf. City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Light & Water Co., 17 Cal.2d 576, 110 P.2d 983 (1941) ( ).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cheshire Hunt, Inc. v. United States
... ... 1900, much of what is now Sarasota County, Florida was owned ... by Bertha Palmer and her family members. ECF No. 14 ¶ ... 890.29 and milepost SW 892.00 outside of the City of ... Sarasota, in Sarasota County, Fla." ECF No. 14-1 at 107 ... ...
-
Consolidated Gas Co. of Florida, Inc. v. City Gas Co. of Florida, 87-6108
...as against public policy. This ruling was affirmed on appeal, although on slightly different grounds. Consolidated Gas Co. of Fla. v. City Gas Co. of Fla., 447 So.2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 456 So.2d 1181 During this time, Consolidated and City Gas also engaged in unsuccessful negot......
-
Stephens v. Dobbins, 86-3025
...97 So.2d 273 (Fla.1957); Gelfand v. Mortgage Investors of Washington, 453 So.2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Consolidated Gas Co. v. City Gas Co., 447 So.2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The instrument creating the easement in this case stated only that it gave the easement owners "an easement for in......
-
Consolidated Gas Co. of Florida v. City Gas Co. of Florida
...Consolidated Gas Company of Florida v. City Gas Company of Florida NO. 65,297 Supreme Court of Florida. OCT 12, 1984 Appeal From: 3d DCA 447 So.2d 351 Pet. for rev. ...