TAMPA SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JESSIE J. NETTLES, 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 an order overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint seeking an injunction to protect riparian rights. The court held that the complainant's title, derived from a U.S. patent dated after Florida's statehood, extended only to high water mark, and the allegations failed to demonstrate a substantial interference with riparian rights sufficient to warrant injunctive relief.
The court held that the complainant's title, derived from a post-statehood federal patent, extended only to high water mark rather than low water mark, and the exhibits accompanying the complaint showed the railroad structure did not substantially impair the complainant's riparian rights of ingress, egress, navigation, fishing, bathing, or view to warrant injunctive relief.
“Although the complainant alleges that her title extends 'to low water mark,' it is alleged that the title was deraigned through a patent from the United States in 1855, after Florida became a State, and such a title is by law limited to high water mark”
Establishes that post-statehood federal patents limit riparian title to high water mark, not low water mark as claimed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJessie J. Nettles alleged ownership in fee simple of lots in Palmetto, Florida, with riparian rights extending to low water mark along the Manatee Riv…
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 Fishing Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In a bill of complaint against the railroad company it is alleged that the .complainant is the owner in fee simple of described lots of land in the Town of Palmetto, Florida, “together with a reserve in front of said lots bordering on the Manatee River and extending to low water mark, together with riparian rights * claiming title by virtue of * mesne conveyances of the United States * the original patent * being dated May 1st, 1855; ’ ’ that the railroad company is constructing its railroad upon the submerged lands in front of the complainant’s land so as “to interfere with her right of ingress and egress to and from the lots over the waters of the Manatee River * and also obstructs the view over the said waters and likewise the right of navigating, bathing and fishing in said waters.” Attached exhibits are expressly made a part of the bill of complaint. An injunction was prayed for. The defendant appealed from an order overruling a demurrer to the bill of complaint.
Although the complainant alleges that her title extends “to low water mark,” it is alleged that the title was deraigned through a patent from the United States in 1855, after Florida became a State, and such a title is by law limited to high water mark, therefore, the Riparian Act of 1856, was not applicable. Thiesen v. Gulf, F. & A.
R. Co., 75 Fla. 28, 78 South. Rep.
491. The exhibits made a part of the bill of complaint show that the common law rights of a riparian owner to ingress and egress, navigation, fishing, bathing and view in and over the waters are not so unlawfully invaded by the defendant company as to justify an injunction. The railroad structure does not touch the lands of the complainant, but is some distance away, and apparently the structure does not impair complainant’s right to reach from the shore and to use the waters of the river for any lawful purpose; and the right of view is apparently not so obstructed as to warrant an injunction to restrain the lawful erection of an authorized public utility across the navigable river. The showing here made does not justify an injunction to preserve the common law riparian rights referred to in the Theisen case supra. See Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warwick J. Hayes and his wife v. Bowman, 91 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1957)…v. State, 116 Fla. 603, 156 So. 603; Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Co., 108 Fla. 46, 146 So. 249; State v. Gerbing, 56 Fla. 603, 47 So. 353; State ex rel. Landis v. Rosenthal, 109 Fla. 363, 148 So. 769; Tampa Southern Railroad Company v. Nettles, 82 Fla. 2, 89 So. 223. Upland owners have been [*800] granted additional statutory riparian rights which, must be -recognized. These we mention hereafter. This power of the .State to dispose of submerged tidal lands has assumed important proportions 'in rece…
-
Freed Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corp., 112 So. 841 (Fla. 1927)…before defendant had made large expenditures under his permit which required the pier to be constructed as it apparently is being built practically" straight east parallel with the north line of Biscayne Avenue." See Tampa Southern R. Co. v. Nettles,82 Fla. 2, 89 So. 2d Rep. 223; Jenks v. Miller, 43 N.Y. Supp. 927. Sullivan v. Moreno 20 Fla. 200. Even if the pier is not constructed precisely at right angles from the shore line to the channel or navigable waters, the complainant has unimpaired access from…
-
City OF Eustis v. Firster, 113 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…-, junction as it did. See the cases of Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corporation, 1927, 93 Fla. 888, 112 So. 841, 52 A.L.R. 1177; Bridgehead Land Co., etc. v. Hale, 1941, 145 Fla. 389, 199 So. 361; and Tampa Southern R. Co. v. Nettles, 1921, 82 Fla. 2, 89 So. 223. Reversed. KANNER, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thiesen v. Gulf, 75 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1917)
- Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1882)