H. A. RAYMOND, APPELLANT,
v.
J. H. WHITCOMB, 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 lower court's injunction that had declared a street dedicated to public use. The appellate court found insufficient evidence of dedication and suggested private easement claims could be pursued separately.
No, the court held that the plat did not clearly indicate a dedication of the space as a public street, and the evidence did not sufficiently prove such a dedication.
“The plat referred to in the decree does not clearly indicate that the space was dedicated as a public street or highway, and the evidence does not show such a dedication.”
This quote explains the court's primary reason for reversing the lower court's decision, highlighting the lack of clear evidence for public dedication.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA property owner sought an injunction to prevent a neighbor from obstructing a street adjacent to his lot, alleging it was dedicated to public use. Th…
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.
Whitfield. J.
J. H. Whitcomb sought a decree enjoining Raymond “from enclosing or attempting to enclose and. from fencing or obstructing the street lying immediately north of” a lot belonging to the complainant, upon the theory that the space referred to had been dedicated to public use as a street. The court decreed that the space had been “dedicated as a public street by the filing of” a plat, “and has been used as such from the date of dedication,” and the injunction was ordered. The defendant appealed.
The plat referred to in the decree does not clearly indicate that the space was dedicated as a public street or highway, and the evidence does not show such a dedication.
If the complainant is entitled to a private easement of egress and ingress over the space in controversy it may be shown and enforced in appropriate proceedings.
The decree is reversed without prejudice.
Taylor, Cociceell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Shackleeord, C. J., did not participate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirkland v. City of Tampa, 75 Fla. 271 (Fla. 1918)…ots according to the plat merely evinced an intention, to dedicate the streets shown thereon to public use as streets and cited Price v. Stratton, supra, and Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Worley, supra, in support of the doctrine. In Raymond v. Whitcomb, 66 Fla. 19, 62 South. Rep. 832, a distinction was made between a dedication of a strip of land, as a street, to the public use and a private easement of egress and ingress over the strip or space in controversy. In the case of City of Gainesville v. Thomas, 6…
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 111 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1932)…e because there is no averment that it was ever accepted by.1 the public or that its use makes it a matter of public consequence and affects the community at large, or that it was' dedicated as a public street or high [*34] way. Raymond v. Whitcomb, 66 Fla. 19, 62 South. Rep. 832. In which case a distinction was made between a dedication of a strip of land as a street to' the public use and a private easement of egress and ingress over the strip. Kirkland v. City of Tampa, 75 Fla. 271, 78 South. Rep. 17.…