GEORGIA SOUTHERN AND FLORIDA RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER A TRUST INDENTURE DATED THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, 1963, A CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
DUVAL CONNECTING RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company sought certiorari review of an interlocutory order in an eminent domain action, claiming the court erred in finding that Duval Connecting Railroad had the power to condemn an easement for a grade crossing. The Florida Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the preliminary order and discharged the writ of certiorari.
The Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order by certiorari because it is a preliminary order in an eminent domain action entered before any final order of taking. The writ of certiorari is discharged to allow the proceedings to continue toward a final order of taking.
“this court does not have jurisdiction of the controversy inasmuch as the petition for certiorari is brought to review an interlocutory order in a common law action that is a preliminary order in an action in eminent domain entered before any final order of taking has been entered”
Establishes the jurisdictional bar to reviewing preliminary eminent domain orders by certiorari
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuval Connecting Railroad Company initiated an eminent domain action against Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company to acquire a permanent easem…
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 Certiorari Review Of Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
As is contemplated by our Rule 4.5, subd. c(6), 32 F.S.A. a separate brief has been presented on the question of the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the controversy, the petitioners averring that their initial brief is intended only to show this court’s jurisdiction, that is, that the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, already rendered is in direct conflict with decisions of another District Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court on the same points of law. City of Dania v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 848; Lorenzo v. Murphy, 159 Fla. 639, 32 So.2d 421, and State ex rel. Washburn v. Hutchins, 101 Fla. 773, 135 So. 298. See Art. V, Sec. 4 of the Constitution of Florida F.S.A. as amended in 1956.
Upon re-examination of the briefs and the authorities cited, we are now of the opinion that this court does not have jurisdiction of the controversy inasmuch as the petition for certiorari is brought to review an interlocutory order in a common law action that is a preliminary order in an action in eminent domain entered before any final order of taking has been entered. This procedure was long ago condemned and we are not conscious of any need now to recognize it.
The writ of certiorari is discharged so that the matter may now proceed to final order.
If the final order of taking is eventually entered, the petitioners will have abundant opportunity to seek a review and a determination of all questions which they are undertaking to have decided in this proceeding.
The action was begun by Duval Connecting Railroad Company to acquire by eminent domain a permanent and perpetual easement for a grade crossing of the right-of-way and tracks of Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company by the tracks of Duval Connecting Railroad Company. It *613was alleged in the petition in condemnation that the power to resort to condemnation was exercisable under Chapters 73, 360 and 361 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. and that the interest sought to be obtained was necessary for public use, for the operation of the railroad of Duval as contemplated in the Certificate of Incorporation of Duval, furthermore, that this necessity had been declared by Duval’s president and directors.
In their answer Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company, and Chase Manhattan Bank, trustee of a mortgage interest in the involved property, disputed the power of eminent domain in Duval and denied the existence of necessity for the taking and further denied that there had been any declaration on the part of the president and directors of Duval to that end.
The cause was heard by Circuit Judge Gooding who disposed of it by an erudite order, now sought to be reviewed in certio-rari, titled: “Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order on Preliminary Issues.”
He decided that Duval had the right to acquire by eminent domain the right-of-way for the crossing at grade of the tracks of Georgia Southern and Florida and he found that necessity for the taking existed. He concluded that the issues in the case were reduced to a determination of compensation to Georgia Southern and Florida and to the amount to be awarded for attorney’s fees. This disposition of the case precipitated the proceeding in certiorari in which the petitioner, Georgia Southern and Florida asserts that the court wandered from the essential requirements of law in the decision that a necessity for the taking was established and that Duval was entitled to build a crossing at grade.
Upon further study and after hearing the argument of counsel, we do not retain the opinion that such conflict with decided cases has occurred as justifies our overturning the order of the District Court of Appeal holding that certiorari was inappropriate in the absence of an order of taking and incidentally our disturbing the order of the Circuit Judge in the basic problem.
CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
BARNS, J. (Retired), concurs specially.
(concurring specially):
The petition for certiorari before this court seeks review of Georgia Southern and F. Ry. Co. v. Duval Connecting Ry. Co., Fla.App., 193 So.2d 19 wherein the lower court denied a petition for the discretionary writ of certiorari. I concur in the judgment of denial here.
BARNS, PAUL D., Justice (Retired)
(concurring specially):
The petition for certiorari before this court seeks review of Georgia Southern and F. Ry. Co. v. Duval Connecting Ry. Co., Fla.App., 193 So. 2d 19 wherein the lower court denied a petition for the discretionary writ of certiorari. I concur in the judgment of denial here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RED OAK Farm, Inc. v. City OF Ocala, 636 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…lve the same parties and the same causes of action). Also, appellate courts have held that certiorari is the proper procedure to review an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding. Georgia Southern & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Duval Connecting R.R. Co., 203 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1967); Valleybrook Developers, Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 272 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). We have jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to abate and the order of taking. The City argues that the two actions should be considered sepa…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hutchins, 101 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1931)
- Lorenzo v. Honorable S. J. Murphy, 159 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1947)
- City OF Dania v. Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist., 134 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Frier v. State, 159 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1947)
- Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Duval Connecting R.R. Co., 193 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)