AUSTIN PEARCE, ET AL.,
v.
FRED P. CONE, AS GOVERNOR, ET AL.
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 court held that prior possession does not grant rights against the State's title, and adverse possession does not apply against the State.
The State leased land to Pearce Sisters, who enclosed it. Pearce Brothers, without legal title, repeatedly drove their cattle onto the leased land des…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
— The State of Florida, in the name of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, owned certain lands. The trustees leased the lands for grazing purposes to Pearce Sisters. Natural barriers enclosed the lands on all save one side and Pearce Sisters erected a fence on that side to complete the enclosure. Pearce Sisters than drove cattle ranging on the land off the leased lands. Some, if not all these cattle belonged to Pearce Brothers. Pearce Brothers had no legal title to the land or to the possession thereof, but they proceeded to drive their cattle back onto the leased lands. This procedure was pursued pro and con several times.
The Attorney General gave notice to Pearce Brothers to cease disturbing the Pearce Sisters in the possession and enjoyment of the lands, the property of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and leased to Pearce Sisters. Pearce Brothers disregarded the notice and continued to trespass on the lands by driving their range cattle on to the said enclosed leased lands.
The trustees and Pearce Sisters filed suit for injunction and on final hearing injunction was awarded.
It appears that Pearce Brothers claimed some sort of right of possession because they had been in possession of the lands using the same for grazing purposes for a number of years.
The claim was without merit. One acquires no rights by possession against the title of the State. Adverse possession does not obtain against the State.
The Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund being the holders of the legal title and the lessors to Pearce Sisters, were proper parties to a suit to enjoin trespass on the lands.
*167No reversible error is made to appear.
The decree is affirmed.
So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovey v. Escambia Cnty., 141 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…allace, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 245. It also applies to lands of a county, town, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision or agency of the state which are held for public purposes rather than owned in a private capacity. See Pearce v. Cone, 147 Fla. 165, 2 So. 2d 360 ; Waterman v. Smith (Fla.1957), 94 So. 2d 186. In direct point with the case on review is Kennedy v. Townsley, 16 Ala. 239, holding that even though title to land situated in a territory ceded to the United States by treaty could have…
-
Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Stevens, 472 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…lties inherent in extracting title from the .sovereign. For example, one cannot acquire any right of possession against the state’s title by adverse possession, simply because “[ajdverse possession does not obtain against the State.” Pearce v. Cone, 2 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla.1941). This principle is “long established and well recognized.” Lovey v. Escambia County, 141 So. 2d 761, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). See also, § 95.14, Fla.Stat.; 2 Fla.Jur.2d Adverse Possession § 60. The reason for that principle, of cours…