BRIDGEHEAD LAND COMPANY, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF RIVER'S EDGE, INC., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
INTER-COUNTY TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
This Florida Supreme Court case, an action in ejectment, was affirmed on the authority of a companion case decided the same day. The plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to remove telephone poles placed along the west side of a bridge fill.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to compel the removal of the telephone poles.
“The record and the briefs in this case have been examined and it is found to be an action in ejectment and a companion case to Bridgehead Land Company v. Arthur B. Hale, et al., decided this date.”
Establishes the nature of the case and its relationship to a companion case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBridgehead Land Company sued Inter-County Telephone & Telegraph Company to compel the removal of telephone poles placed along the west side of a fill …
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.
The record and the briefs in this case have been examined and it is found to be an action in ejectment and a companion case to Bridgehead Land Company v. Arthur B. Hale, et al., decided this date.
In the latter case, plaintiff in error seeks to eject defendant in error from the fill or approach tO' the north end of Edison Bridge in Lee County, more particularly described in the declaration therein, while in this case plaintiff in error seeks to compel defendant in error to remove its telephone poles placed along the west side of said fill. The questions raised and the reasons relied on in the two cases are parallel.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed on authority of the last cited companion case.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Buford, Chapman and Adams, J. J., concur.
Brown and Thomas, J. J., concur in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Lewis, 170 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1964)…that the statute operates as a statute of repose with respect to the rights of way of roads -or portions thereof theretofore constructed Fy the counties and the State Road Department and which are being used. In Bridgehead Land Co. v. Hale (1941), 145 Fla. 394, 199 So. 361, 363, in considering the operation and validity of the statute, ¡this court said: “We find no merit to this assault but, on the other hand, we find the act well grounded in reason. It is shown ■that the State had constructed thousands…