GEORGE PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF SUMTER COUNTY,
v.
MONARCH ORANGE COMPANY, A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION
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.
Monarch Orange Company sought to enjoin County Commissioner George Perry from destroying cattle gaps and gates on roads crossing the company's pastureland in Sumter County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, holding that Perry's authority as a county commissioner over public roads did not include the power to destroy structures on the company's private land that did not interfere with road management.
The court held that while the Board of County Commissioners has control and management of public roads and bridges, this authority does not extend to destroying gaps or gates on a private landowner's property when such structures do not interfere with the control and management of the roads themselves. The injunction restraining Perry from destroying the company's property was properly issued.
“While the Board of County Commissioners may have the control or management of the public roads and bridges of a county, it has not been shown on this record that the appellee had the authority to destroy the gaps or gates placed across the road traversing the lands of the appellee which he was then using as a pasture and upon which cattle were then located.”
Establishes that supervisory power over roads does not confer authority to destroy private structures on adjacent land
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonarch Orange Company owned approximately 9,000 acres of grazing land in Sumter County, Florida, which it fenced and equipped with cattle gaps and ga…
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 Destruction Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The record in this case discloses that the Monarch Orange Company owned approximately nine thousand acres of low-priced grazing lands located in a sparsely settled- section of Sumter County, Florida, and was the owner of stock cattle then grazing on said acreage. The lands were fenced by the Monarch Orange Company and modern', well constructed cattle gaps placed across the roads traversing the pasture, and gates near the gaps were provided so that cars and cattle or stock could be driven along the roads through the pasture by all parties, and there was no effort to obstruct the roads or preclude the general public from the use thereof. With the land fenced and the roads traversed by stock gaps and gates, it protected the enclosure of the lands which are now being used as a pasture and simultaneausly prevented the stock of others from- grazing upon the lands described in the bill of complaint.
The appellant caused three of the stock gaps to be torn *177up and removed and threatened to tear out and remove other gaps on the roads crossing the appellee’s land, when the lower court restrained the appellant from destroying other gaps on the lands of the appellee, and on final hearing made the temporary injunction previously issued permanent, and an appeal therefrom has been perfected to this Court.
It is here contended that the appellant, as a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Sumter County, as a matter of law, had supervisory powers over the roads of said county and that it logically followed that the power was in him to allow or disallow the construction of the gaps and gates over or about the road traversing the lands of the appellee. While the Board of County Commissioners may have the control or management of the public roads and bridges of a county, it has not been shown on this record that the appellee had the authority to destroy the gaps or gates placed across the road traversing the lands of the appellee which he was then using as a pasture and upon which cattle were then located. It does not follow that the construction or erection of these gaps in any manner interfered with the control and management of the roads and bridges of the county on the part of the Board of County Commissioners.
We have studied the record and fail to find an abuse of the discretion of the Chancellor below in entering an order permanently restraining George Perry, individually, and as a County Commissioner of Sumter County, from destroying the property of the appellee. The final decree appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
*178Buford, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Terrell and Thomas not participating -as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…ction long before the power to enjoin was endorsed by the 1961 Administrative Procedure Act. E.g., Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963 (1912); Sparkman v. County Budget Comm’n, 103 Fla. 242, 137 So. 809 (1931); Perry v. Monarch Orange Co., 142 Fla. 176, 194 So. 320 (1940); Port Everglades Terminal Co. v. Williams, 148 Fla. 439, 4 So. 2d 522 (1941). The general power to enjoin thus continues, but it continues subject to judicial restrictions upon its use which require prior resort to and exhaustio…