Daugherty v. Latham
| Decision Date | 21 May 1937 |
| Citation | 128 Fla. 271,174 So. 417 |
| Parties | DAUGHERTY v. LATHAM et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bill for injunction by Mrs. Florence Daugherty against E. A. Latham and others, as and constituting the County Commissioners of Valusia County, Florida, and their successors in office, to enjoin closing of a public highway. From a decree denying a temporary injunction and dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainant appeals.
Reversed for appropriate proceedings. Appeal from Circuit Court, Valusia County; H. B. Frederick, judge.
Metcalf & Finch, of West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Hull, Landis & Whitehair, of De Land, for appellees.
Bill for injunction was filed by the appellant alleging that the County Commissioners of Valusia County, acting under color of authority of sections 2441, 2445, C.G.L., sections 1593, 1597, R.G.S., were about to close and abandon a public highway constituting appellant's only means of ingress and egress without providing another road to the main highway leading to market and outside points as convenient and as practicable as the road now in existence, thereby making it impossible for appellant to transport her farm products and necessities of life to market; that the road about to be abandoned and closed had long been in use and was the only practicable means of ingress and egress to appellant's home and farm on which she had resided for about fifty years; that the acts of the respondent county commissioners were for the benefit of other private property owners and part of a community effort to deprive plaintiff of the road she was then enjoying and had long since had the privilege of using; that all of the acts of defendants below were being perpetrated to plaintiff's great injury and without making to her, or offering to her, compensation for the damage about to be inflicted. The court denied a temporary injunction and dismissed the bill for want of equity. Complainant below appealed.
There was equity in the bill. 29 Corpus Juris, par. 232, p. 521, and cases cited.
Reversed for appropriate proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Daugherty v. Latham
-
Palm Beach County v. Tessler
...Bozeman v. City of St. Petersburg, 1917, 74 Fla. 336, 76 So. 894; Halpert v. Udall, S.D.Fla.1964, 231 F.Supp. 574. Cf. Daugherty v. Latham, 1937, 128 Fla. 271, 174 So. 417. Id. at 8-9. The court held the evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that the Austins had suffered a sufficien......
-
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Dist. v. Scott
...they allege only the conclusion that they are deprived of practical ingress and egress across the river. Compare: Daugherty v. Latham, 1937, 128 Fla.App., 271, 174 So. 417, where the highway sought to be closed constituted the plaintiff's only means of ingress and egress. See, Daugherty v. ......
-
Pinellas County v. Austin, 74--967
...Bozeman v. City of St. Petersburg, 1917, 74 Fla. 336, 76 So. 894; Halpert v. Udall, S.D.Fla.1964, 231 F.Supp. 574. Cf. Daugherty v. Latham, 1937, 128 Fla. 271, 174 So. 417. Applying these principles to the instant case, it must be conceded that the Austins were not totally deprived of acces......