M. C. BOLEY, ET AL, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's sustaining of a demurrer to an answer challenging Escambia County's condemnation of Boley's land for a public highway. The court held that the county's exercise of eminent domain authority will not be disturbed by courts absent a showing of fraud, caprice, or action beyond statutory authority.
The court held that the county's determination of the location of condemned land will not be interfered with by the courts if made in good faith and is not capricious, wantonly injurious, or beyond the statutory authority granted. Without allegations of fraud or clear abuse of discretion, the demurrer to the answer was properly sustained.
“The grantee of the power of eminent domain may determine the location of the land required to be appropriated in order to accomplish the public purpose in view, and such determination will not be interfered with by the courts if it is made in good faith and is not capricious, or wantonly injurious, or in some respect beyond the privilege granted by the statute.”
Establishes the standard of judicial review for exercises of eminent domain authority—courts will not interfere absent bad faith, caprice, willful injury, or statutory overreach.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEscambia County filed a petition to condemn land owned by Boley for construction of the Pensacola-Ferry Pass Public Road, designated by the State Road…
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 Condemnation cases and more on FLexlaw
— The County of Escambia in the State of Florida filed a petition to condemn certain lands owned by Boley upon which other defendants claimed liens. The land to be condemned was designated to the county Commissioners of Escambia County by the State Road Department of the State of Florida to be condemned for public highway which was to be a part of a road to be known as Pensacola-Ferry Pass Public Road.
The Respondents filed an answer to the petition to which demurrer was filed and sustained. The allegations of the answer are to the effect that there is a more direct and convenient route which could be obtained without cost; that the Respondent will be injured to a greater degree by' the condemnation of the lands proposed than by taking of what is offered as a free right-of-way through his property; that the route sought to be condemned was selected because of the influence of certain individuals and that the selection of this route will interfere with the selection and use of a part of the grounds contemplated for a postal and commercial air-port and flying field.
There is no charge in the answer of fraud. Neither are there sufficient allegations to clearly show an abuse of discretion which may be condemned by the courts.
The order sustaining the demurrer to the answer which is the basis of this appeal should be affirmed on authority of the opinion in the case of Spafford et al v. Brevard County, 92 Fla. 617, 110 So. R. 451, where, on petition for re-hearing, it was said:
“The grantee of the power of eminent domain may determine the location of the land required to *507be appropriated ’ in order to accomplish the public purpose in view, and such determination will not be interfered with by the courts if it is made in good faith and is not capricious, or wantonly injurious, or in some respect beyond the privilege granted by the statute. ’ ’
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J. and Ellis, J. concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Inland Waterway Develop. v. City of Jacksonville, 38 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1948)…condemned to supply its present or future business, the application should be granted. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. Pan American Airways, 137 Fla. 808, 188 So. 820; Spafford v. Brevard County, 92 Fla. 617, 110 So. 451; Boley v. Escambia County, 100 Fla. 505, 129 So. 784; Sibley v. Volusia County,147 Fla. 256, 2 So. 2d 578. From these cases it follows that a broad discretion is vested in those clothed with power to determine what property and how much is necessary to condemn for public purposes and the…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Sapp, 280 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1973)…ond District, 262 So. 2d 256, which reversed an order of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court approving the condemnation of respondents’ properties by the County. The District Court decision directly conflicts with Boley, et al. v. Escambia County, 100 Fla. 505, 129 So. 784 (1930), and Wilton, et al. v. St. John’s County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929). We therefore have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Fla.Const., F. S.A. The order reviewed by the District Court found that the road ri…
-
Catholic Burse Endowment Fund, Inc. v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 180 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…ndemned to supply its present or future business, the application should be granted. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Pan American Airways, 137 Fla. 808, 188 So. 820; Spafford v. Brevard County, 92 Fla. 617, 110 So. 451; Boley v. Escambia County, 100 Fla. 505, 129 So. 784; Sibley v. Volusia County, 147 Fla. 256, 2 So. 2d 578. “From these cases it follows that a broad discretion is vested in those clothed with power to determine what property and how much is necessary to condemn for public purposes and t…
Authorities Cited
- Spafford v. Brevard Cnty., 92 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1926)