L. B. MCDONALD, J. B. MCDONALD AND A. W. MCDONALD, TRADING AS MCDONALD LUMBER COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. B. PADGETT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a preliminary injunction, holding that a statute granting injunctions for trespass on timbered lands does not extend to individuals claiming ownership solely of the turpentine within the trees.
No, the statute does not apply to a claimant who owns only the turpentine in the trees. Therefore, the injunction was improperly granted.
“The section referred to gives the right to injunction to “any person 'claiming to own any timbered lands in this State.””
Identifies the statute under which the injunction was sought.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought an interlocutory order for a preliminary injunction against trespass, claiming ownership of the turpentine in pine trees on the land…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The appeal here is from an interlocutory order for preliminary injunction against trespass to realty by cutting trees, granted under section 1469 of the Revised Statutes to one claiming to own “the turpentine in and on the pine trees” on the land in'question with the privilege of cutting, boxing and scraping the said trees. The section referred to gives the right to injunction to “any person 'claiming to own any timbered lands in this State.” This was held in the recent case of Doke v. Peek, 45 Fla. 248, 34 South. Rep. 896, not to apply to the owner of growing timber upon land, and, a fortiori, does not give a right of action to one owning only the turpentine in the trees. No irreparable injury or other ground of equitable intervention is claimed.
The order granting the preliminary injunction is reversed.
Carter, P. J., and Maxwell and Cockrell, JJ., concur. Taylor C. J., and ShacicleRord and Hocker, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Horne, 52 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1906)…he reason that said section [*520] confers such right only upon persons “claiming to own any timbered lands in this State,” not upon persons owning simply the timber upon the lands. Doke v. Peek, 45 Fla. 244, 34 South. Rep. 896; McDonald v. Padgett, 46 Fla. 501, 35 South. Rep. 336. If then this statute confers no such right to proceed, upon what ground of equity jurisdiction do appellees base their right to proceed in a forum of equity? In other words, what locus standi have they in such a forum? No irrepa…
Authorities Cited
- Doke v. Williams, 45 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1903)