Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Worley

• Decision Date: 09 May 1905
• Citation: 49 Fla. 297,38 So. 618
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. WORLEY et al.

38 So. 618

49 Fla. 297

FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. WORLEY et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

May 9, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Minor S. Jones, Judge.

Bill by the Florida East Coast Railway Company against George A Worley and others. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Where the owners of a tract of land make a town plat thereof laying same out into lots and blocks, with intervening streets separating the blocks clearly indicated upon the plat, and sell and convey lots with reference to such plat they thereby evince an intention to dedicate the streets to public use as such, and their grantees, as against them and those claiming under them, acquire the right to have the streets kept open, even though no formal written instrument of dedication is ever executed. The rule applies not only to streets and avenues, but to parks and other public places designated upon the plat. The word 'Park,' written upon a parcel of land designated upon the plat implies that such parcel is dedicated to the public for park purposes, and the sale of lots with reference to such plat, especially where such lots abut the park or are separated from it only by a street, carries with it the right on the part of the grantees to have the parcel used for public park purposes only.

2. Where the owners of certain land prepared and filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of a county a plat thereof exhibiting thereon the land as laid off into blocks lots, and streets as and for a town, and a parcel shown thereon was marked 'Park,' the fact that a written dedicatory instrument attached to the plat only purported to dedicate the 'streets or highways' shown thereon does not, in the absence of other language showing clearly an intention not to dedicate the park, operate as a reservation of such parcel from dedication, and the sale of lots with reference to such a plat operates as a dedication of the parcel for public park purposes.

3. A plat of lands laid off as a town, with a dedicatory statement attached thereto prepared and filed by the owner of the land with reference to which lots are sold by him, must, like all other written documents, be construed as a whole, in order that the intention of the party may be ascertained, and every part of the instrument be given effect. If the document is ambiguous in respect to the extent of the dedication, the construction must be against the dedicator and in favor of the public. All parts of the instrument should be considered harmonized and given some effect if possible, and no part should be rejected as meaningless if that can be avoided.

4. The owners of a tract of land filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of a county a plat of such tract, purporting to be laid off into town lots and blocks, with streets running east and west numbered from 1 to 27, and avenues running north and south lettered from A to M. The Miami river, emptying into Bay Biscayne, was represented on the plat as running through the city in such a manner as to cut through certain streets, leaving parts of each of said streets north and parts south of the river. None of the streets were represented as extending to the waters of the river, as they all purported to open into streets running nearly parallel with the river on each side, known as North and South River streets, which left small strips of land between these two streets and the river. Bay Biscayne was represented as lying on the east, and all the streets numbered from 1 to 14 open into an avenue or street called Biscayne Drive, running nearly parallel with the shores of the bay. A narrow strip of land lying between Biscayne Drive and the bay was divided into small lots by lines drawn across it in various places, but these lots were not designated or numbered in any way, except that part of the strip extending from a line drawn opposite the center of Third street to a line drawn opposite the center of Seventh street, which was marked in large letters, 'Park.' Upon this plat was written a dedicatory statement by the owners, acknowledging that they had caused the plat to be made, followed by the language: 'And we do hereby dedicate to the perpetual use of the public the streets of highways shown thereon, reserving to ourselves, our heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns owning lands abutting or adjoining the same, the reversion or reversions thereof whenever discontinued by law; also reserving that certain strip of land which lies on the easterly side of Biscayne Bay Drive, between said drive and the shore of Bay Biscayne, including in said reservation all riparian rights adjacent to said strip which extends from 14th street to the northern limits of the plat; also reserving such strips of land with riparian rights as are shown by the above plat to lie between the Miami river and the streets running parallel thereto.' Many lots were sold in the town according to this plat, including the lots abutting Biscayne Drive. Held, that the plat, properly construed, shows an intention to dedicate the parcel marked 'Park' as a public park, and to reserve from dedication the balance of the strip lying between Biscayne Drive and Bay Biscayne, and all riparian rights incident or appurtenant to the entire strip, so far as the dedicators owned it. Held, further, that purchasers of lots according to the plat, particularly those owning lots adjoining the park or separated from it merely by a street, have a right to insist that the park be kept open as a public park, even though the city authorities have never formally evinced an intention to accept the dedication.

5. Section 680, Rev. St. 1892, which purports to grant authority to a city or town council to discontinue parks, has no application to a park laid out or established after the adoption of the Revised Statutes.

6. Where a bill was brought by a party, claiming certain lands in a town, seeking to enjoin other persons alleged to be trespassing thereon, under a claim that the parcel in controversy was a public park which they, as adjoining lot owners, had a right to insist should be kept open, and all parties claimed title by deeds referring to a town plat prepared by former owners, who laid the lands off into town lots and sold them according to the plat, and who had deeded all their right in the alleged power to complainant, neither such former owners, nor the city in which such lands were located, were necessary parties, it not appearing that such former owners or the city were trespassing upon or claiming any rights in the property which the defendants claimed to be a park, nor that they owned any lots abutting such park or situated in the immediate neighborhood thereof.

COUNSEL

Geo. M. Robbins, for appellant.

A. W. Cockrell & Son, for appellees.

OPINION

CARTER J.

On August 8, 1896, a plat was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Dade county, made by authority of Mary Brickell, William B. Brickell, her husband, Julia D Tuttle, and the Ft. Dallas Land Company, showing certain lands laid off into blocks, lots, streets, and avenues within the limits of what is now known as the city of Miami. This plat was prepared in June, 1896, by A. K. Knowlton, C. E., at the instance of the parties named, who owned all the lands shown on the plat, except a small parcel which was the property of one J. H. Day. Proceedings for the incorporation of the city of Miami were had on July 28, 1896, and a transcript of the proceedings was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court in August of the same year. The plat exhibits, among other things, many blocks divided into lots, with streets running east and west, numbered from 1 to 27, and avenues running north and south, lettered from A to M. The Miami river, which empties into Bay Biscayne, is represented on the plat as running through the city in such manner as to cut through the streets numbered from 8 to 15, leaving parts of each of those streets north and parts south of the river. None of these streets are represented as extending to the water of the river, but those north open into North River street, while those south open into South river street, which run almost parallel with the river, leaving small strips of land between those two streets and the river. The plat represents Bay Biscayne as lying on the east, and all of the streets numbered from 1 to 14 open into an avenue or street called Biscayne Drive, which runs nearly parallel with the shores of the bay. The plat represents a narrow strip of land varying in width as lying between Biscayne Drive and the bay. Blocks Nos. 1, 20, 21, 40, 41, 60, 61, 80, 83, 100, 102, 119, 120, and 127 lie west of and abut upon Biscayne Drive. The strip of land between Biscayne Drive and the bay is divided into small lots or parcels by lines drawn across it at various places, but the lots are not numbered or designated in any manner, except those extending from a line drawn across the strip opposite the center of Third street to a similar line drawn across it opposite the center of Seventh street, which is marked in large letters 'Park.' Upon the plat filed with the clerk the parties before named signed and sealed a written statement, as follows: 'Know all men by these presents that we [naming the parties] have caused to be made the foregoing attached map of [describing certain lands] lying and being in Dade county State of Florida, to be known as Miami; and that we do hereby dedicate to the perpetual use of the public the streets or highways shown thereon, reserving to ourselves, our heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns, owning lands abutting or adjoining the same, the reversion or...