Smith v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 11 October 1954
• Docket Number: No. 14844.,14844.
• Parties: Helen I. SMITH, a widow, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

215 F.2d 365 (1954)

Helen I. SMITH, a widow, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 14844.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

September 10, 1954.

Rehearing Denied October 11, 1954.

Malcolm Lewis Kneale and Malcolm S. H. Kneale, Kneale & Kneale, Miami, Fla., for appellants.

John M. Kelley, Jr., Richard E. Cotton, Harry N. Boureau, Shutts, Bowen, Simmons, Prevatt & Julian, Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before HOLMES and STRUM, Circuit Judges, and THOMAS, District Judge.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This is not a suit in equity for a mandatory injunction, but is a common law action for monetary damages for the wrongful taking and use by appellee of appellant's land. The case is hinged by appellant, as a focal point, on a distinction between a suit in equity to compel another to do something or prohibit one from committing specific acts and a civil action merely seeking compensation for what has been done. Each side moved for a summary judgment; the court below granted the motion of the defendant; we think that both motions should have been overruled, and the issue of estoppel submitted to the jury.

The complaint alleged that the corporate defendant constructed a railroad track on certain land owned by the plaintiff in fee, subject to an easement for a public street in the city of Hialeah, Florida; that, as defendant began constructing same, the plaintiff made a demand upon it to desist from further construction work on said track and to remove that portion of the track that was laid. Damages were alleged and compensation for the use of the land was sought, together with an item of special damages in that defendant not only extended its tracks completely across plaintiff's property, but beyond it. The complaint also alleged that the defendant maintained a certain pile of crossties thereon, which was unsightly and a nuisance. The defendant admits the laying and extension of the track, but denies that this reduced the value of plaintiff's land. The answer sets up as a defense that a certain agent of the plaintiff, and a former co-owner, replatted this particular property and thereby dedicated this land to said city for proper public purposes.

The appellant is the fee simple owner of land on which an easement for public streets and avenues has been granted to the said city of Hialeah; she also owns lands adjacent and contiguous to certain of these streets and avenues on which the railroad tracks were constructed under an easement granted by the city. Not owning the fee, but having only an easement for limited purposes, the municipality of Hialeah had no authority to grant the appellee permission to do what it has done and is doing. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Southern Investment Company, 53 Fla. 832, 44 So. 351. Having no written permission from any present or former owner of the land in question, the appellee must rely upon its plea of estoppel, which we think presents several genuine issues of fact for the jury.

The appellee's major premise, in the words of its attorneys, is that it entered and laid its tracks upon and along Southeast 10th Avenue with the consent of the appellant, such consent having been conveyed by her lawful agents, acting within the scope of their authority; and that appellant, by virtue of the acts and representations of her agents and joint adventurer, is estopped from revoking the license and right of way thus granted to the appellee. The appellant...