Pierce v. Warren

• Decision Date: 12 September 1950
• Citation: 47 So.2d 857
• Parties: PIERCE et al. v. WARREN, Governor, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 857

47 So.2d 857

PIERCE et al. v. WARREN, Governor, et al.

Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.

Sept. 12, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1920.

Charles R. Pierce, pro se, and Leland Hyzer, Miami, for appellants.

Evans, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston & Simmons, Thos. McE. Johnston and W. E. Dunwody, Jr., all of Miami, Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General and Rufus M. Yent, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

THOMAS, Justice.

The plaintiffs, Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, were awarded a decree quieting and confirming in them the title to the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 4, township 55 south, range 41 east, which the court decided was 'sovereignty land' as distinguished from 'swamp and overflowed land,' and the defendants, successors to the original grantee of the property, and a mortgagee appealed.

We shall state in condensed form the allegations of the bill of complaint found by the chancellor to have been proved and to have, therefore, warranted the final decree.

In July, 1821, the United States took possession of the territories of East and West Florida ceded to it under the Treaty with Spain of 22 February 1819, 8 Stat. 252. When the state was admitted to the Union by Chapter XLVIII, Acts of Congress of the United States, approved 3 March 1845, 5 Stat. 742, it became the owner of all lands under navigable waters and all tidelands, and subsequently, by act of the state legislature, title to these 'sovereignty lands' was vested in the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. See Chapter 253, Florida Statutes 1941, and F.S.A. Property of this kind, claimed appellees, was the land involved in this suit.

Certain lands not of this category, that is, not covered by navigable waters and not washed by the tides, referred to as 'swamp and overflowed lands,' were granted to the state by Chapter LXXXIV, Acts of Congress of the United States, Sept. 28, 1850, 9 Stat. 519, 'An Act to enable the State of Arkansas and other States [including Florida] to reclaim the 'Swamp Lands' within their limits.' The act required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare an accurate list and plats of such lands and transmit the same to the governor of the state and, upon request of the governor, to 'cause a patent to be issued to the State therefor.'

In the performance of this duty the Secretary of the Interior, 4 December 1896, issued a patent to the State of Florida covering several parcels, including the one in controversy. On 21 June 1911 the trustees conveyed this tract to the appellants' predecessor, and at that time the section in which the property was located had not been surveyed. Later a survey was made by a United States engineer under the direction of the Associate Supervisor of Surveys, and this survey was approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and ex officio United States Surveyor General for Florida and filed in the General Land Office 18 January 1924. The trustees later formally accepted this survey as defining the boundaries, area, and location of the property involved in this litigation and, in addition, caused a survey to be made by the Chief Drainage Engineer to determine the boundaries of 'swamp and overflowed lands' and 'sovereignty lands' in the section including this property. Both surveys established that there were no 'swamp and overflowed lands' in the area described at the outset of this opinion.

It is conceded that the facts, so far as they refer to the acquisition of the land by the state and the holding of it by the trustees, are not in dispute; so the basic question for us to determine is whether the trustees attempted to convey 'sovereignty lands,' which they could not have done before the enactment of Chapter 7304, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1917, F.S.A. § 253.12 et seq., or did deed 'swamp and overflowed lands,' which they were empowered to do.

The appellants argue plausibly and vigorously that the plaintiffs, in their effort to establish the validity of their own title and the invalidity of their adversaries', failed to demonstrate the nature of the tract at the time of the conveyance to the latters' predecessor in 1911. To buttress their position they emphasize the circumstances surrounding the surveys and the treatment of the title by those authorized to deal with it.

It seems logical to dispose of these circumstances before going into the main question.

It certainly can be forcefully argued that in 1911 the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund thought the lands were 'swamp and overflowed lands' for the very reason that they executed a deed to them when they had no authority at the time to convey 'sovereignty lands.' We think little is added to the strength of such an argument, however, by the reservation of the mineral rights. It is significant, too, that the Secretary of the Interior incorporated the property in dispute in his patent of several parcels, issued in compliance with an act requiring that such patents be issued only to convey 'swamp and overflowed lands.' Assuming that this inclusion was deliberate rather than inadvertent, it indicated that he...