Tampa Northern R. Co. v. City of Tampa
| Decision Date | 17 March 1932 |
| Citation | 104 Fla. 481,140 So. 311 |
| Parties | TAMPA NORTHERN R. CO. v. City of Tampa[*] |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by the Tampa Northern Railroad Company against the City of Tampa. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint, complainant appeals.
Reversed.
BUFORD C.J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, judge.
Knight, Thompson & Turner, of Tampa, for appellant.
Mabry, Reaves & White, of Tampa, for appellee.
In September, 1927, appellant filed its bill of complaint in the circuit court of Hillsborough county, Fla., praying for the reformation and correction of a deed of conveyance executed on the part of appellee to appellant June 21, 1907. A demurrer to the bill of complaint was sustained and appeal was taken from that order.
It is contended by appellee that the deed and conveyance were gratuitous, that the city was without authority to make it in the first place, and that a court of equity will not reform a gratuitous conveyance.
The record discloses that appellant in June, 1907, acquired title to certain lands in Hillsborough county known locally as 'Hooker's Point'; that said lands were in the form of a peninsula and were bounded on the east, west, and south by the waters of Tampa Bay; that the lands under the waters of Tampa Bay within the limits of the city of Tampa and adjacent to Hooker's Point, being the lands involved in this controversy, were by chapter 4882, Acts of 1899, Laws of Florida, granted to the city of Tampa; that a question arose between appellant and the city of Tampa as to which one of them owned the submerged lands in Tampa Bay adjacent to Hooker's Point, but that said difference was composed by the city of Tampa agreeing to and passing its Ordinance No. 440 conveying to appellant all interest the city had in and to these certain described submerged lands in Tampa Bay, adjacent to and extending from Hooker's Point, east and south, to the city limits and west to the property of the Tampa Terminal Company on the condition that said property be used within ten years from date of the ordinance for railroad, shipping, warehouse, terminal, commerce, or other purposes permitted by the riparian act of the state of Florida. The record further discoses that on June 21, 1907, deed was executed by the city of Tampa to appellant in compliance with the terms of said ordinance, but that the description in said deed is vague and indefinite, and that while appellant had at all times rested in the assurance that it held title to all the submerged lands owned by the city of Tampa which the said deed and ordinance purported to convey, it (appellant) was advised by the city in August, 1926, that it (the city) claimed title to a portion of said submerged lands and that the said deed and ordinance did not in fact convey all the submerged lands belonging to and lying within the city to the south, east, and west of Hooker's Point.
It is admitted and is shown that at the time the deed was executed, the city intended to convey, and appellant thought it was taking title to, all the submerged lands claimed by the city to the east, west, and south of Hooker's Point. The city now contends that it did not convey to appellant all the submerged lands the deed and ordinance were intended to convey and that it was without authority to convey those lands it did convey.
In support of its contention as to lack of authority to make the conveyance, the city invokes section 10 of article 9 of the Constitution of Florida; but that contention is foreclosed by the decision of this court in Bailey v. City of Tampa, 92 Fla. 1030, 111 So. 119, where we held section 10 of article 9 inapplicable to a transaction like this.
In State ex rel. Buford v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 196 102 So. 336, by majority opinion, this court held that chapter 4882, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1899, granted to the city of Tampa in fee simple absolute, all lands owned or held by the state in trust or otherwise lying within the corporate limits of the city, including lands wholly or partially covered by the tide, sawgrass lands and marsh lands, the bottom of Hillsborough Bay, and the bottom of Hillsborough river. Said act also authorized the city of Tampa to enter into contract for the reclamation and development for residential purposes of the said lands together with Grassy Island, Depot Key and the mud flats adjacent thereto having no value for purposes of commerce and navigation. The lands involved in the instant case were covered by this grant, and if the city was authorized to contract for their reclamation and development for residential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Co.
...lands by a municipality under legislative authority, in a case where the lands had actually been filled in and improved. Tampa Northern R. Co. v. City of Tampa, supra. also, Rivas v. Solary, 18 Fla. 122, as to the character and extent of the state's proprietary interest in lands under a nav......
-
Coastal Petroleum Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
...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, 104 Fla. 481, 140 So. 311 (1932); State ex rel. Buford v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 196, 102 So. 336 (1924). The right of the public to the use of the wat......
-
Chase Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Schreiber
...Life Assurance Society, 119 Fla. 641, 160 So. 745 (1935); Budd v. Long, 13 Fla. 288 (1869).13 Similarly in Tampa Northern R. Co. v. City of Tampa, 104 Fla. 481, 140 So. 311 (1932), the grantee was held entitled to reformation of the deed where the conveyance was made in exchange for a promi......
-
Dorman v. Publix-saenger-sparks Theatres, Inc.
... ... operated in the City of Gainesville, Florida, among others, ... two certain motion picture ... Ed.); Elliott on Contracts, Vol. 1, Sec. 203 (1913 Ed.); ... Tampa Northern R. Co. v. City of Tampa, 104 Fla ... [135 Fla. 291] 481, 140 ... ...
-
More than you wanted to know about the doctrine of reformation.
...v. Wright, 425 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1982); Hopkins v. Mills, 156 So. 532 (Fla. 1934). (27) Tampa Northern RR. Co. v. City of Tampa, 140 So. 311 (Fla. 1932), Carr v. City of Kissimmee,86 So. 699 (Fla. 1920); see also Providence Sq. Assn, Inc v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1987); P......