Sewell v. Arundel Corporation
| Decision Date | 05 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 5004.,5004. |
| Citation | 20 F.2d 503 |
| Parties | SEWELL et al. v. ARUNDEL CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frank Clark, of Miami, Fla. (Clark, Clark & Maiden, of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellants.
S. B. Jennings, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
This suit was brought by appellants, five citizens and taxpayers of Miami, Fla., against appellee, a Maryland corporation, to enjoin the prosecution of certain work in the harbor of Miami. The bill is very lengthy, but, stated as briefly as possible, it alleges that appellee has a contract with the United States to dredge a ship channel in the harbor of Miami, 200 feet wide, to a depth of 25 feet; that the excavated material is deposited at a point in Biscayne Bay, in the harbor of Miami, about 2,000 feet east of Miami Bay Front Park; that this is being done pursuant to an agreement between appellee and the city officials of Miami for the purpose of building up an island approximately 2,100 feet wide by 8,000 feet in length.
The bill fulsomely describes the beauties of the Miami water front, the desirability of Miami as a tourist and residential city, and alleges the great value of the land and improvements adjacent to the water front. The bill further alleges that by virtue of a permit from the War Department it is the intention of the city authorities to build wharves, warehouses, a sewage disposal plant, and other objectionable structures on the proposed island, and to connect it with the city proper by a causeway; that the proposed island will be hideous, and destroy the beauty of the water front, and will increase the danger from storms; that it will be a menace to health, because of noxious odors emanating from offensive cargoes unloaded at the proposed wharves and by interfering with the proper disposal of sewage; and that, in consequence, the value of plaintiffs' and other property in the city will be greatly diminished.
The bill also alleges that the ownership of the land under the waters of Biscayne Bay is in the state of Florida as a trustee for the benefit of all her citizens; that the Legislature has attempted in 1925, by an act passed over the veto of the Governor (chapter 11616, Acts Extra Session 1925), to grant the submerged and partly submerged lands under Biscayne Bay to the city of Miami, for municipal purposes, but was without power and authority to do so; and that the Secretary of War was without authority to grant a permit to the city of Miami to build the proposed island, or to authorize the deposit of material where it is being made.
The bill prays for an injunction restraining appellee from depositing excavated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levingston Shipbuilding Co. v. Ailes
...an obstruction which it believes to be an improvement to navigation without the intervention of court action. Sewell v. Arundel Corporation, 20 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1927) so "Undoubtedly an obstruction in navigable waters is a nuisance, and may be abated in a proper proceeding. However, it is......
-
LEVINGSTON SHIPBUILDING COMPANY v. Ailes, 22913.
...United States v. Ingram, 203 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 995, 73 S.Ct. 1136, 97 L.Ed. 1402 (1953); Sewell v. Arundel Corp., 20 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1927). 1 239 F.Supp. 775 (E.D.Tex.1965). 2 River and Harbor Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 1173, 1175. 3 House Document No. 553 requir......