TOWN OF LAKE MAITLAND
v.
STATE, EX REL. CARY D. LANDIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, RELATOR, AND MOBILE-GULF LAND CO., AN ALABAMA CORPORATION, CO-RELATORS
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 judgment of ouster, finding that the co-relator was estopped by laches and acquiescence from challenging the territorial boundaries of the Municipality of Lake Maitland. The court relied on prior decisions establishing similar estoppel principles.
Yes, the co-relator is estopped by acquiescence and laches from maintaining the proceeding to oust the lands from the municipality.
“The only question involved is whether or not the co-relator is estopped-by acquiescence and laches indulged in by it and its predecessors in title to maintain this proceeding.”
This quote states the central legal issue the court had to decide.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute over eighty acres of land within the Municipality of Lake Maitland. These lands were annexed by ordinance in 1887 and late…
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 Estoppel By Acquiescence cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of ouster in favor of co-relator,'defendant in error, as to a described eighty (80) acres of land in the Municipality of Lake Maitland.
The lands involved are surrounded by other lands remaining in and constituting the territorial area of the Municipality. ' The Municipality was created and organized under'the general law'in 1885. 'The lands'involved in'the judgment of ouster and other lands were annexed by ordinance under the general law in 1887. By Chapter 6068 Special Acts of 1909, the Legislature of Florida validated the establishment of the Municipality and defined its boundaries, including therein all the lands in the original Municipality and all the lands annexed by ordinance in 1887.
*654The only question involved is whether or not the co-relator is estopped-by acquiescence and laches indulged in by it and its predecessors in title to maintain this proceeding.
We must hold that it is so estopped on authority of the opinions and judgments of this Court in the cases of City of Winter Haven v. State, ex rel. Landis, 125 Fla. 392, 170 Sou. 100; State, ex rel. Davis, v. City of Eau Gallie, 99 Fla. 579, 126 Sou. 124; and cases cited.
Therefore, the judgment should, be reversed. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 363 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ly six years ago and continued to the incident for which the defendant was on trial did not make the evidence too remote. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959); Talley v. State, 160 593, 36 So. 2d 201 (1948); Campbell v. State, 127 Fla. 399, 173 So. 677 (1937); Whiteman v. State, 343 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Reversed and remanded for a new trial.…
-
Morin v. City of Stuart, 111 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1940)…aines City, 126 Fla. 561, 169 So. 383; State ex rel. Landis v. Coral Gables, 120 Fla. 492, 163 So. 308, 101 A.L.R. 578; Haines City Heights, Inc., v. Haines City, 127 Fla. 86, 172 So. 484; Town of Lake Maitland v. State ex rel. Landis, 127 Fla. 653, 173 So. 677; City of Auburndale v. State ex rel. Landis, 135 Fla. 172, 184 So. 787; City of Winter Haven v. State, 125 Fla. 392, 170 So. 100. Certain Lands v. City of Stuart, 137 Fla. 784, 188 So. 605; State ex rel. Davis v. City of Stuart, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So.…
Authorities Cited
- City of Winter Haven v. State, 125 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1936)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Fred H. Davis v. City of Eau Gallie, 99 Fla. 579 (Fla. 1930)