Leonard v. Baylen Street Wharf Co.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1910 |
| Citation | 52 So. 718,59 Fla. 547 |
| Parties | LEONARD et al. v. BAYLEN STREET WHARF CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Escambia County; J. E. Wolfe, Judge.
Bill by S. S. Leonard and another against the Baylen Street Wharf Company. Decree for defendant, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
A franchise is a special privilege conferred upon individuals or corporations by governmental authority to do something that cannot be done of common right.
Franchises are not consumed in their use, and, when a particular use of them by individuals or corporations ceases by nonuse forfeiture, limitation or otherwise, the further use may be granted or permitted to others. Private rights in franchises are confined tod a proper use of them for the general welfare, subject to lawful governmental regulation.
The character and extent of the right granted to individuals and corporations in the use of a franchise depend upon the terms of the grant, the nature of the franchise, and the purpose designed to be accomplished.
The right to the use of a franchise is the property of the grantee, and its sale by judicial decree for the payment of his debts is not forbidden by law where the use continues for the public good as originally designed by the grant.
COUNSEL Jno. C. Avery, for appellants.
Maxwell & Wilson, for appellee.
The appellants, being denied an accounting for the use of a wharf franchise and an injunction against the further use of the franchise, appealed.
In substance, the bill of complaint alleges that the appellants are the heirs at law of Samuel A. Leonard, to whom was granted by legislative act in 1854 (Laws 1854, c 678) the right to construct a wharf at and from the termination of Baylen street, in the city of Pensacola; the act also providing 'that the said Samuel A. Leonard, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns shall have power to assess and collect tolls and rates of wharfage, by suit or otherwise, for the uses of said wharf, so far as may be consistent with the rights of the city of Pensacola to regulate such rates;' that said act has never been repealed; that, after the passage of the act, Samuel A Leonard constructed a wharf, in pursuance of the terms thereof at and from the termination of said Baylen street; that after the death of Samuel A. Leonard, without authority of law, his interest in said wharf was sold in 1867 by order of the county judge by the administrator; that said sale did not divest the title of the heirs of Samuel A. Leonard to said franchise; that S. Z. Gonzalez became the purchaser at such sale, but acquired no title thereby; that, in 1889, the defendant appellee here was incorporated with authority to acquire, manage, control, and operate the Baylen street wharf, and to collect tolls and charges for its use; that the defendant corporation has acquired only the rights of said S. Z. Gonzalez to said franchise, and a conveyance of the space where the wharf is, from the water front commissioners appointed under chapter 4802, Laws Fla. 1899; that the defendant is, and for a long time has been, using the wharf and collecting tolls and charges thereon. The prayer is for a delivery of the wharf to appellants, for an accounting, and for appropriate injunctions and general relief. A demurrer on the ground that no equity was stated being sustained, and no amendment being made, the bill of complaint was dismissed, and on appeal it is urged that the right granted to Samuel A. Leonard by the act of 1854 is a franchise, and that the sale of the franchise was ineffective to divest the title of appellants, who are the heirs of the grantee of the franchise; that the rights of appellants are not barred by limitations or laches; and that the charter of the defendant required it to acquire the wharf, which it has not legally done.
A franchise is a special privilege conferred upon individuals or corporations by governmental authority to do something that cannot be done of common right. All franchises belong to the government in trust for its people. Franchises do not become the absolute property of any one, but their use may be granted or permitted by proper governmental authority subject to supervision and regulation, and upon such terms as may be lawfully imposed. They are permitted to be used for the good of the public, usually for the purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth.
...purpose of rendering an adequate service without unjust discrimination, and for a reasonable compensation." Leonard v. Baylen Street Wharf Co., 59 Fla. 547, 52 So. 718, 718 (1910) Franchisees are charged "fees" which "`are bargained for in exchange for specific property rights relinquished ......
-
The State ex inf. Chaney v. West Missouri Power Company
...Ark. 461; Commercial E. & L. Co. v. Tacoma, 17 Wash. 661; Wheeling v. Ry Co., 82 W.Va. 308; McCue v. Rommel, 148 Cal. 539; Leonard v. Baylen St. Wharf Co., 59 Fla. 547; San Lino Water Co. v. Estrada, 117 Cal. State v. Western Canal Co., 40 Kan. 96; Detroit v. Mutual Gaslight Co., 43 Mich. 5......
-
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Rosenthal
... ... right. Leonard et al. v. Baylen Street Wharf Co., 59 ... Fla. 547, 52 So. 718, 31 L. R ... ...
-
City of Mount Dora v. JJ's Mobile Homes, Inc., 90-733
...Sec. 34.03 (3d Ed.). When granted, a franchise becomes a property right in the legal sense of the word. Leonard v. Baylen Street Wharf Co., 59 Fla. 547, 52 So. 718 (1910); West Coast Disposal Service, Inc. v. Smith, 143 So.2d 352 (Fla.2d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 279 (Fla.1962). Bu......