Florida Cent. & P.R. Co. v. Bear

Decision Date17 September 1901
Citation43 Fla. 319,31 So. 287
CourtFlorida Supreme Court
PartiesFLORIDA CENT. & P. R. CO. v. BEAR.

Error to circuit court, Orange county; Minor S. Jones, Judge.

Action by the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company against J. H. Bear, From the judgment, plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Proceedings for condemnation of property under the power of eminent domain are governed and controlled by the statutes authorizing them, and these statutes must be strictly construed and substantially complied with in all proceedings instituted thereunder.

2. Under section 1555, Rev. St., the petitioner in condemnation proceedings is required within 10 days after the rendition of judgment to pay into court for the use of the defendant the compensation ascertained by the jury, unless further time be allowed by the court, or else the proceedings, including the judgment, will be null and void, even though petitioner is thereby seeking to condemn property already in its possession; and, where default in such payment is made, a writ of error thereafter sued out from such judgment will be dismissed by the appellate court.

COUNSEL

Beggs & Palmer, for plaintiff in error.

Alex. St. Clair-Abrams, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On June 1, 1897, plaintiff in error filed its petition in the circuit court of Orange county praying condemnation of certain land of defendant in error for the purpose of a trackway for its road, which it was then using and occupying as such. Viewers were appointed, and upon the filing of their report defendant in error filed his objection to the award and demand for a jury. Such further proceedings were had that in October 1900, a trial by jury was had, and a verdict rendered, and after the motion for a new trial filed by plaintiff in error was overruled, the court, on March 11, 1901, entered its judgment, which, after reciting the verdict of the jury adjudged that the property described in the verdict be appropriated to petitioner upon petitioner's paying to the defendant in error or securing by deposit of money the compensation found by the jury, and adjudged a personal liability on the part of petitioner to defendant in error for said sum. From this judgment plaintiff in error on May 10, 1901, took this writ of error, assigning various rulings of the court as error, none of which question the propriety of the personal feature of the judgment.

It is made to appear that plaintiff in error has never paid into court for the use of defendant in error the compensation found by the jury and mentioned in the judgment, and that no further time to do so was ever allowed by the court.

Defendant in error now moves this court to strike the writ of error and transcript from the files, basing the motion upon the ground among others, of the failure of plaintiff in error to pay into court the compensation found by the jury. The court is of opinion that the ground stated is not appropriate to the motion as made,--which is a motion to strike as stated,--but that the defects disclosed by the record are of such a character as to require us to dismiss the writ of error.

The proceedings in the court below were instituted and conducted under the provisions of sections 1544-1558, Rev. St., and by the terms of section 1559 the sections mentioned are expressly made applicable to cases where condemnation is sought by a petitioner who is using lands the title to which has not been acquired by it. By section 1551, when the trial is by jury (as in this case), the jury is impaneled to try what compensation shall be made to the defendants for the property sought to be appropriated, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by the petitioner. Section 1553 requires the verdict to state,--First, an accurate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Wilton v. St. Johns County
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 13 June 1929
    ... 123 So. 527 98 Fla. 26 WILTON et al. v. ST. JOHNS COUNTY. Florida Supreme Court June 13, 1929 ... En ... Error ... to ... instituted thereunder. Florida, C. & P. R. Co. v ... Bear, 43 Fla. 319, 31 So. 287 ... In the ... case of Isleworth ... ...
  • Shavers v. Duval County
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 11 June 1954
    ...we think it clear that under our condemnation statutes (which from their nature require a strict construction: Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla. 319, 31 So. 287), a mortgagee of lands sought to be condemned cannot be held to be an 'owner' and hence entitled to an attorney's fee to ......
  • Seminole County v. M.G. Investments of Orlando, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 12 June 1998
    ...we think it clear that under our condemnation statutes (which from their nature require a strict construction: Florida Cent. & P.R. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla. 319, 31 So. 297), a mortgagee of lands sought to be condemned cannot be held to be an "owner" and hence entitled to an attorney's fee to b......
  • Haig v. Wateree Power Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 11 April 1922
    ... ... be no entry of judgment that would bear interest in said ... proceeding, because said verdict was not rendered in ... Mountain Lake Water ... Co., 13 Cal. 306, 73 Am. Dec. 575; Florida Central, ... etc., R. R. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla. 319, 31 So. 287; ... damages. It is manifest that a flat rate of 7 per cent. (the ... legal rate of interest) cannot be the measure of damages ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT