THE ASTCA INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION DULY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ALEX ST. CLAIR-ABRAMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE COUNTY OF LAKE, H. R. FERREN, CHAIRMAN, J. C. HETHCOX, W. H. RICHEY, G. F. REVELS, J. W. GAUSE, ALL AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF FLORIDA, AND GEORGE E. HELLER, APPELLEES
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 Florida Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing Lake County officials from cutting bearing citrus trees on the appellants' land while constructing a public highway. The court found the trees possessed such peculiar value that destruction would irreparably harm the land's essential nature and usefulness pending resolution of the appeal.
The court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon or cutting any bearing citrus trees on the described lands, finding that the peculiar nature and value of the growing citrus trees necessitated their preservation until the merits could be adjudicated.
“the growing citrus trees upon the land in controversy are of such a nature and peculiar value that in order to preserve the essential nature, value and usefulness of the land, until the merits of the appeal can be adjudicated, the trees should not be destroyed or removed”
Establishes the court's rationale for granting the injunction based on the irreplaceable nature of the citrus trees
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Astca Investment Company and Alex St. Clair-Abrams owned land in Lake County, Florida planted with bearing citrus trees. Lake County commissioners…
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 Temporary Restraining Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
An appeal having been entered herein from an order denying a temporary restraining order to prevent the defendants from entering upon or cutting any bearing citrus trees through the grove upon the land described in the bill of complaint for the purpose of con strueting a public highway, and it appearing to the court that the growing citrus trees upon the land in controversy are of such a nature and peculiar value that in order to preserve the essential nature, value and usefulness of the land, until the merits of the appeal can be adjudicated, the trees should not.be destroyed or removed, therefore it is, by virtue of the power of this court conferred by Section 5 of Article Y of the State Constitution, to issue “all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction, ’ ’ hereby considered, ordered and decreed that the defendants, their successors, agents and employees are hereby restrained and enjoined from entering upon or cutting any bearing citrus trees in the grove upon lands of the Astea Investment Company, and from entering upon or cutting through the lands of the complainant, Alex. St. Clair-Abrams which lands of said two complainants are described as follows:
“Beginning at the southwest corner of section fifteen (15) of township nineteen (19) south of range twenty-six (26) east, and running thence east on the south boundary of said section, twelve (12) chains and eighty and one-fourth (80%) links; thence north seventeen degrees and thirty (17°30") west thirty-four (34) chains and fifty (50) links to the margin of Lake Eustis; thence following the traverse of said Lake southwesterly to the west boundary of section fifteen (15), thence south on the section line to the southwest comer of the section, thirty-one (31) chains and fifty (50) links, by the original measurement to the point of beginning, and containing twenty-seven (27) acres, more or less.
“Also lot one (1) of section sixteen (16) of township nineteen (19) south of range twenty-six (26) east, less one (1) acre in the southwest angle sold to W. W. Niles and a tract of seven seventeen-one hundredths (7.17) acres sold to N. B. Harden and adjoining the Niles tract on the east, containing (less these two pieces) fifty-fonr (54) acres, more or less. ’ ’
‘ ‘ The NY% of the NE% of section 21, township 19 south of range 26 east and also an additonal lot adjoining being a portion of NE14 of NE*4 of section, township and range aforesaid, and comprising 10 acres more or less, making in all 15-28/100 acres, and being further described as beginning at a post on the north boundary of section 21, township 19, south of range 26 east, Lake County and State of Florida, 10 chains west of the NE corner of the section, township and range aforesaid, and running thence south 10 chains, west 10 chains, thence south to a point intersecting a compromise line, dividing the property of W. W. Niles and A. J. Lane, thence north 35 degrees, five minutes west to the section line, thence easterly on the section line aforesaid 19 94/100 chains to the point of beginning, and containing 15 28/100 acres more or less. Also the following described property — beginning at a point on the south boundary of section 16, township 19, south of range 26 east, 29 chains west of the southeast corner of the said section, and running thence as follows, viz.: North 4 and 70/100 chains to the shore of Lake Eustis, thence north 43 degrees, east 3 and 26/100 chains, thence south 67 degrees 10 minutes, east 18 and 19/100 chains to a post 10 chains west of the southeast corner of section 16, and containing 7 17/100 acres.”
This restraining order and injunction shall remain in force pending the further order of this court.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spafford v. Brevard Cnty., 92 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1926)…or Bridge for which said lands or property are necessary. ’' A writ of certiorari was issued by the court. A restraining order pending the certiorari was issued by this court under Section 5, Article V, Constitution. Astca Inv. Co. v. Lake County, 86 Fla. 639, 98 South. Rep. 824; Peacock v. Feaster, 52 Fla. 563, 45 South. Rep. 1038. Section 29', ■ Article XYI of the Constitution expressly provides that no private property nor right of way shall be appropriated * until full compensation therefor shall be…
-
Crill v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 96 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1928)
-
Paramount Enters., Inc. v. Mitchell, 104 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1932)…re, in the following cases: Cohen vs. L’Engle, 24 Fla. 542, 5 So. 235; Jacksonville Electric Light Co. vs. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 229, 18 So. 677; Wheeler vs. Meggs, 75 Fla. 687, 78 So. 685; Astca Investment Company vs. County of Lake et al., 86 Fla. 639, 98 So. 824; and Stuart vs. Thursby, 103 Fla. 990, 137 So. 7,; Maxcy Inc. vs. Mayo, Comr., 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121; Wester vs. Belote, 103 Fla. 976, 138 So. 721. The net result of our holding in these cases is to the effect that this Court is not…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence