STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., C. P. TOWNSEND, ET AL., COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
FLORIDA COAST LINE CANAL AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 affirmed a lower court's decision denying a writ of mandamus, holding that a canal company would not be compelled to build a drawbridge where a road once existed if the public benefit did not outweigh the cost and inconvenience, and if the road's public status was unclear.
No, the canal company will not be required to construct the drawbridge because the evidence does not clearly show the road was a public road, and the benefits to the public do not outweigh the expense and inconvenience to the company and the public.
“the benefits to the public of another bridge over the canal at the point named will not bear a fair relation to the expense to the canal company of another bridge and to the risk and inconvenience the bridge would be to the public use of the canal for transportation purposes”
Establishes the balancing test used by the court to determine if a drawbridge is necessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe County Commissioners of St. Johns County sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Florida Coast Line Canal and Transportation Company to build a dr…
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 Mandamus Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The County Commissioners of St. Johns County brought mandamus proceedings, in the Circuit Court to compel the canal company to-build a draw bridge over its canal at a point where a road existed when the canal was constructed. A referee heard the case on the pleadings and the evidence and gave judgment for the respondent. The relators took writ of error. The evidencé shows that a bridge over the canal in use at another point meets all reasonable requirements and that the benefits to the public of another bridge over the canal at the point named will not bear a fair relation to the expense to the canal company of another bridge and to the risk and inconvenience the bridge would be to the public use of the canal for transportation purposes ; and it does not clearly appear that the road was in fact a public road over which the county commissioners had authority. Under these circumstances the' canal company will not by mandamus be required to construct the drawbridge Affirmed.
Browne/C. J.,. and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.