A. B. ZETROUER, APPELLANT,
v.
R. G. ZETROUER, 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 affirmed a permanent mandatory injunction requiring a landowner to reopen public roads he had blocked. The court found sufficient evidence to support the lower court's decision, including testimony about long-term public use of the roads.
Yes, the evidence amply supports the chancellor's finding, and there is no reason to reverse the decision.
“On hearing a temporary mandatory injunction was granted which order was affirmed by this Court in Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253, 103 So. Rep. 625, where the law of the case was fully covered.”
Establishes the prior procedural history and legal precedent for the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a bill of complaint seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the appellant to remove fences blocking public roads. A temporary inju…
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 Prescription cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On October 9th, 1923, appellee filed' his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, praying for a mandatory injunction against appellant requiring him to open certain public roads which he (appellant) had closed by causing fences to be constructed across them. On hearing a temporary mandatory injunction was granted which order was affirmed by this Court in Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253, 103 So. Rep. 625, where the law of the case was fully covered. On final hearing the temporary mandatory injunction was made permanent and this appeal was prosecuted from that order. The sole question presented to us on this appeal is the suffieiencjr of the evidence to sustain the finding of the chancellor. We have examined the record carefully and while there are many conflicts in the testimony we think it' amply supports the finding of the chancellor and no reason is made to appear why his finding should be re versed. Even the testimony of the appellant shows a limited use of the roads in question by the public for more than twenty years; the time necessary to acquire them by prescription.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
State & Joseph S. Diver v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1933)…ipal assets, or some special municipal non-tax income, merely as a substitute for the pledging of the city’s taxing powers such as would ordinarily be done for customary municipal borrowing. * For example, in City of Sebring v. Avant, 95 Fla. 960, 117 Sou. Rep. 383, the hazardous occupation statute was applied to cities engaged in the “business” of producing and selling electricity. The statutes of the State have also imposed excise taxes on such utilities without discrimination as to the -municipal character…
-
Ervine Hargrove v. Town OF Cocoa Beach, 96 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1957)…n the contemplation of the legislature in enacting statutes with reference to “corporations”. See Parker v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 131; City of Lakeland v. Amos, 106 Fla. 873, 143 So. 744. In City of Sebring v. Avant, 95 Fla. 960, 117 So. 383, we held the municipality within the contemplation of the word “person” in a statute regulating persons engaged in hazardous occupations. We hold that a municipal corporation was within the contemplation of the legislature when it adopted Section 7…
-
Griffith v. Shamrock Vill., Inc., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957)…it a recovery, however, the breach must be attended by some intentional wrong, insult, abuse or gross negligence which amounts to an independent tort. 25 C.J.S. Damages § 120, pp. 716-717. In the case of City of Sebring v. Avant, 1928, 95 Fla. 960, 117 So. 383 and other related cases this Court has defined gross negligence as the want of slight care. This Court has held that allowance of punitive damages is dependent on a showing of malice, moral turpitude, wantonness or outrageousness of tort. Dr. P. Ph…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1925)
- DuBose v. E. P. Parker as Town Marshal, 89 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1925)