W. C. MCDUFFIE ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
L. P. HILL, AND HIS WIFE, VIRGINIA HILL, RESPONDENTS
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Fla. App., 196 So.2d 790, reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the Writ and have heard argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the Writ was improvidently issued. Therefore, the Writ is hereby discharged and the Petition for Writ of Cer-tiorari dismissed.
It is so Ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., DREW and THOR-NAL, JJ., and WHITE, Circuit Judge (Retired), concur.
ERVIN, J., concurs specially with Opinion.
(concurring specially with opinion):
I concur in the decision to discharge the writ. While I believe that the owners of the adjacent soil on Alligator Lake because of its size and the history of its use have rights similar to riparian owners to contin-uancy of the lake in its natural condition, it does not appear from its determination of the present facts of this case that the District Court’s decision conflicts with other appellate decisions. It found that the Respondents’ dike and well were designed to protect their pasture lands lying landward of the lake’s high water mark and do not unduly interfere with the common rights of other owners adjacent to the lake. I do not perceive the decision of the District Court to have such finality as to preclude subsequent relief if it is later demonstrated in a proper case that the rights and lands of other adjacent owners are interfered with in the common use and enjoyment of the lake.
ERVIN, Justice
(concurring specially with opinion):
I concur in the decision to discharge the writ. While I believe that the owners of the adjacent soil on Alligator Lake because of its size and the history of its use have rights similar to riparian owners to contin-uancy of the lake in its natural condition, it does not appear from its determination of the present facts of this case that the District Court’s decision conflicts with other appellate decisions. It found that the Respondents’ dike and well were designed to protect their pasture lands lying landward of the lake’s high water mark and do not unduly interfere with the common rights of other owners adjacent to the lake. I do not perceive the decision of the District Court to have such finality as to preclude subsequent relief if it is later demonstrated in a proper case that the rights and lands of other adjacent owners are interfered with in the common use and enjoyment of the lake.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Robert L. Shevin v. Ramsey Stock Farms, Inc., 265 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Hill v. McDuffie, 196 So. 2d 790 (Fla.App.1967), cert. den. 203 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1967). SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.…
-
L. P. Hill and his wife v. McDUFFIE, 223 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…stimony. We have reviewed the previous opinion of this court and the record upon which it is based, as well as the record and briefs in the instant case, and it appears to us that the former opinion in this case (196 So. 2d 790, cert. denied, Fla., 203 So. 2d 325) is sufficiently clear and unambiguous as not to require the taking of further testimony by the trial court before complying with the Mandate of this Court, and, until such time as further damages or causes of action arise, the trial court is direct…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. McDUFFIE, 196 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)