Holland v. Fort Pierce Financing & Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1946 |
| Citation | 27 So.2d 76,157 Fla. 649 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOLLAND, Governor, et al. v. FORT PIERCE FINANCING & CONSTRUCTION CO. |
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1946.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; Ira A Hutchinson, judge.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Lamar Warren and D. Fred McMullen, Asst Attys. Gen., and Julius F. Parker, of Tallahassee, for Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, appellant.
Carlton & Ellis and D. C. Smith, both of Fort Pierce, for Fort Pierce Inlet District, appellant.
Milam, McIlvaine & Milam, of Jacksonville, for appellee.
The bill of complaint filed in this case on the 20th of August, 1942, in substance avers that plaintiff in the years 1919-1920 purchased for a consideration of approximately $150,000 certain lands at the City of Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County. That said lands actually fronted on Indian River, a navigable stream. That said land was bounded by the hight water mark of the Indian River, and that plaintiff acquired the fee title to said land with full riparian rights. That after securing the necessary permit from the United States engineers plaintiff proceeded to construct a bulkhead approximately 750 feet out in the river and paralleling the shore line some 1700 feet in length. That by process of dredging plaintiff filled in behind the bulkhead so that the area between the shore line or high water mark and the bulkhead became filled in land with surface elevation several feet higher than normal high water mark. That plaintiff subsequently constructed an extension of said bulkhead northward for approximately two thousand feet, behind which extension the area was filled in by the same process, so that the filled in lands comprise an area of approximately sixty acres, bounded on the east by said bulkhead approximately 3700 feet, and on the west by the old shore line of the river. That the lands were filled, in the direction of the channel of the river but do not obstruct the channel, and leave full space for the requirements of commerce. That the bottom of the river where the bulkhead was constructed and the land filled in, sloped gradually eastward from high water mark of the river toward the channel, from zero to a depth approximately six feet at the bulkhead, and that the area so filled was never any part of an island, shallow bank or bar. That in addition to the purchase price of the uplands, plaintiff and its grantees have expended more than one million dollars in bulkheading, filling, reclaiming and the construction of improvements on said lands. That when plaintiff purchased ths said uplands the river had not been dredged to sufficient depth to accommodate sea-going vessels and said uplands were not accessible to deep water and no inlet had been dredged across the river to the Atlantic Ocean and said property had no substantial value until plaintiff dredged a channel across the river, dug a turning basin, dredged slips, constructed piers, and installed spur connections across the filled in lands. That in 1941, the legislature of Florida enacted Chapter 21546, Special Acts, which said Act attempted to invest the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund with title to all of the land so bulkheaded and filled in by plaintiff, the purpose of said Act by its terms being to authorize the Trustees to sell, transfer and convey said lands upon such terms as they might direct. That in pursuance of said Act the Trustees were proceeding to sell and transfer said land to Fort Pierce Port District. Whereupon plaintiff, for itself and its grantees, filed with the Trustees timely protests in accordance with Section 253.14, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., and that said protests and objections were by the Trustees overruled. The prayer of the bill is that Chapter 21546, Sp.Acts 1941, be held unconstitutional as violative of Sections one and two, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, and Section 29 of Article 16 thereof, and that the Trustees be restrained from asserting title to, or disposing of said lands.
On the 1st of February, 1943, the Trusttees filed their answer to the bill, incorporating counter-claim and motion to dismiss. The State of Florida through the Attorney General was permitted to intervene as a defendant on the 26th of March, 1943, and thereupon filed answer.
The answers of the Trustees and of the State principally present questions of law, depending on the construction and application of Chapter 8537, Gen.Acts 1921, F.S.A. § 271.01 et seq.
The Trustees also aver in their answer that the bottom of the river where plaintiff bulkheaded and filled in, sloped eastward from high water mark of plaintiff's uplands toward the channel, beginning at zero and running out to six feet or more at the bulkhead, and that the lands making up the bottom of the river in front of plaintiff's uplands consisted of shallow banks and bars along the shore, within the provisions of Section 253.12, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., and so were within the exception of Chapter 8537, Gen.Acts 1921, by Section 9 thereof.
On April 28, 1944, the Fort Pierce Inlet District was permitted to intervene as a defendant on the condition that it be bound by the status of the case at that point, as well as the stipulation theretofore filed between counsel for plaintiff and defendants, Trustees and the State of Florida.
The answer of the Fort Pierce Inlet District, like those of the other defendants, largely presents questions of law.
By the stipulation mentioned, it was admitted that plaintiff was vested with the legal title to and actual possession of the several tracts of land described in the bill of complaint on approximately the dates alleged in the bill; that each of said tracts actually fronted upon Indian River, a navigable stream, and that plaintiff's title to said uplands extended to the high water mark of the Indian River, and included such riparian and other rights as are granted to uplands owners of water front property by the statutes of the State of Florida.
After the proof was in and upon final hearing the Chancellor entered final decree on the 21st of August, 1945, finding that plaintiff was seized of fee simple title to the lands described in the bill to high water mark, with full riparian rights. That Construction Company erected permanent bulkhead and piers and made the fill as shown by the plat, plaintiff's Exhibit 6. That none of the lands so improved at any time were part of any island, sand bar, shallow bank, small island or bar or shallow bank along the shores of the mainland. That the bottom of the Indian River here sloped gradually eastward without any submerged irregularities or obstructions. That the improvements in nowise interfered with navigation and were duly authorized by the United States. That Construction Company granted various parcels of these lands by warranty deed. That Construction Company and its grantees expended more than one million dollars in improving said lands and found that Chapter 8537, Acts of 1921, constituted a continuing offer by the State to riparian owners to improve their lands, as was done here, and that by so doing title became vested in the Construction Company and that the attempted divesting of this title by special legislative act was illegal and the Act unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined and restrained the defendants, Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, the State of Florida and Fort Pierce Inlet District, a public corporation, severally, from asserting any title or right in and to the described lands, or from attempting to dispose of the same under the provisions of said Chapter 21546 or otherwise.
From this decree the defendants, Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, the State of Florida and Fort Pierce Inlet District, a public corporation, appeal.
The appellants, the Trustees and the State of Florida, have grouped the Assignments of Error into four questions for consideration on this appeal, as follows:
No. 1. 'Does a private corporation for profit, owning uplands down to the high water mark of the navigable stream, by bulkheading and filling in the submerged lands below said high water mark pursuant to a supposed grant under Chapter 8537, Laws of Florida 1921, become vested with the title to the filled in lands if prior to such bulkheading and filling the waters covering said submerged lands were employed for boating for anchoring and beaching boats, for fishing by commercial fishermen and others and for commercial fishermen to dry and repair their nets and racks situated therein?'
No. 2. 'Does a private corporation for profit, owning uplands down to the high water mark of a navigable stream by bulkheading and filling in the submerged lands below said high water mark pursuant to a supposed right under Chapter 8537, Laws of Florida 1921, become vested with the title to said filled in lands if such bulkheading and filling result in the corporation monopolizing the port and port facilities of the harbor in which the filled in lands are located?'
No. 3. 'Does a private corporation for profit, owning uplands down to the high water mark of a navigable stream by bulkheading and filling in the submerged lands below said high water mark pursuant to a supposed grant under Chapter 8537, Laws of Florida 1921, become vested with the title to the filled in lands if prior to such bulkheading and filling the bottom of said stream at the point of bulkheading and filling was sand and sloped gradually towards the channel of the stream from a depth of zero at said high water mark to a depth of five and a half feet at said bulkhead?'
No. 4. 'Is Chapter 21546, Laws of Florida 1941, constitutional?'
We shall consider first Question No. 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Co. v. Price
...use of all the people. Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 8 Cir., 99 F.2d 902; Holland v. Fort Pierce Financing & Const. Co., 157 Fla. 649, 27 So.2d 76; Miller v. Lewiston-Clarkston Canning Co., 35 Idaho 669, 209 P. 194; State v. New, 280 Ill. 393, 117 N.E. 597;......
-
Coastal Petroleum Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
...use and benefit of the waters is not violated. See, e.g., Gies v. Fischer, 146 So.2d 361 (Fla.1962); Holland v. Fort Pierce Financing & Construction Co., 157 Fla. 649, 27 So.2d 76 (1946); Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Co., 108 Fla. 46, 146 So. 249 (1933); Tampa N.R.R. v. City of Tampa, 10......
- State ex rel. Mitchell v. Kelly
-
Hayes v. Bowman
...See also Adams v. Elliott, 128 Fla. 79, 174 So. 731; Williams v. Guthrie, 102 Fla. 1047, 137 So. 682; Holland v. Ft. Pierce Financing & Construction Co., 157 Fla. 649, 27 So.2d 76; Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corporation, 93 Fla. 888, 112 So. 841, 52 A.L.R. 1177; McDowell v. Trustees of Inter......
-
Dredging up the Butler Act.
...with the First and Third districts, has, at least tacitly, already decided it. In Holland v. Fort Pierce Financing & Construction Co., 27 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1946), the court addressed the applicability of the Butler Act to extensive improvements the Fort Pierce Financing and Construction C......