TAMPA AND JACKSONVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PARK TRAMMELL, GOVERNOR, AND OTHERS, CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, APPELLEES
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 decision sustaining a plea to jurisdiction, holding that a circuit court in DeSoto County has jurisdiction to hear an equity suit by a railway company seeking conveyance of approximately 250,000 acres of land from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, despite the defendants' residence in Leon County.
The court held that a circuit court in a county where property in litigation is located has absolute right and correlative duty to entertain the suit, even when defendants reside elsewhere and property is involved in multiple counties. The personal privilege of residents to be sued in their home county does not apply when the property in litigation lies in the county selected as the forum.
“a suit may be brought in the county "where the property in litigation is."”
Establishes the statutory basis for jurisdiction over suits involving real property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTampa and Jacksonville Railway Company filed an equity bill to compel the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to convey approximately 250,000 ac…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Venue Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
The Railway Company filed its bill to compel the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to convey to it about 250,000 acres of land in the Fund, alleged to be due under a Legislative grant. These lands are described by section, township and range, in the counties of Dade, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Monroe, Osceola, Lee and DeSoto. Other relief was also prayed.
The Trustees filed their plea, setting up the personal privilege of being sued in Leon County, the county of their residence. Omitting formal parts, the plea reads:
“That they and each of them reside and have their domicile arid place of residence in Tallahassee, in the county of Leon, in said State of Florida; that the cause of action set forth and described in said Bill of Complaint did not accrue-in the County of DeSoto, nor is the property involved in said litigation located in DeSoto County; that there is no specific or certain described area of land involved in said litigation, but the queston of the complainant’s right to a conveyance from these defendants to a small undefined and undetermined portion of said large area situated and located in various counties in the State of Florida is the only matter involved in said suit, and these defendants have the right and claim the privi lege of having said action brought in the county of Leon, in the State of Florida, where they reside, and where the cause of action, if any, accrued.”
Upon argument the plea was sustained and an appeal taken from the ruling.
We think the court erred in so ruling. Under General Statutes, section 1383, a suit may be brought in the county “where the property in litigation is.” The complainant claims that it is entitled under the grant to a quarter million acres of land, out of the fund, lying nearest its line of railroad; it gives a list of land alleged to belong to the fund, comprising about one and a half million acres, but says “that the lands in said list which are nearest the said line of railroad of your orator are those located within the limits of said county of DeSoto.” The list includes something over thirty thousand acres in that county.
The cited section of the General Statutes does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, but confers a personal privilegie upon residents of being sued in their home county unless the cause of action arose or the property in litigation lies in the county selected as the forum by the plaintiff or complainant. We do not understand the statute to drive the complainant to the resident county of the defendant, if the land sued for lies in more than one county, but that a bona fide claim for land in any county gives the court for that county the absolute right and the correlative duty to entertain the suit.
We are not concerned now with the degree of nicety of pleading requisite to pleas in equity of this character; nor do we undertake to pass upon the validity of the complainant’s claim to this land under the-legislative grant; we only decide that the Circuit Court for DeSoto county should entertain the suit.
The order sustaining the plea is reversed, with directions to overrule the plea and to entertain the cause.
Taylor, C. J. and Shackleford and Whitfield, JJ-, concur. Ellis, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nancy E. Sales v. Berzin, 212 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…n rule”. Under the local action rule, a suit primarily seeking the transfer of title to real property was considered to be quasi in rem and was required to be brought in the county wherein the land was situated. Tampa & J. Ry. Co. v. Trammell, 1915, 70 Fla. 409, 70 So. 400; Georgia Casualty Co. v. O’Donnell, 1933, 109 Fla. 290, 147 So. 267. The local action rule apparently had its inception at a time when the process of the circuit court did not run throughout the state, but only the circuit. Lakeland Idea…
-
Gibson v. Longino, 111 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1933)…jurisdiction of the Court and it was not sufficient to show that the complainants were not entitled to an adjudication of their right to a lien on the real estate involved in the proceedings. In Tampa and Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Trammell, Governor, 70 Fla. 409, 70 Sou. 400, this Court said: “A bona fide assertion of a claim for land lying in any county gives the Circuit Court sitting in that county, juris [*537] diction independent of the residence of the defendant, even though the claim embraces lands l…