Volume 57 — Florida Reports

<p>This case was decided by Division A.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Walton County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County. Tfie facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County. • The facts in the.case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case .are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court E11 Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Walton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Walton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Citrus County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. Where it appears from an alternative writ of mandamus that the county commissioners of a county levied and collected a special tax of 3 mills for the year 1906, and 5 mills for 1907, on all the real and personal property in the county subject to taxation for public roads and bridges under and by virtue of the law contained in section 850 of the General Statutes of 1906, an incorporated city in said county can compel said county commissioners by mandamus to draw a warrant on the County Treasurer for the city’s proportion of said tax as provided for in said section; and said alternative writ is not subject to demurrer because it alleges that the county commissioners declined to audit the claim of said city upon the ground they had spent the money when said writ alleges that there is sufficient money in the treasury to pay the claim of the city; nor is said writ subject to demurrer on the theory that it shows affirmatively the claim was not presented within twelve months from the time it became due, when it does not so appear.</p> <p>2. Whether the claim mentioned in this proceeding is embraced in section 78s General Statutes of 1906 providing that every claim against a county shall be presented to the board of county commissioners within one year from the time said claim shall become due, is not decided.</p> <p>3. Under the statutes of this State when special taxes for road and bridge purposes are levied and collected under section 850 General Statutes of 1906, it is the duty of the county commissioners to draw a warrant on the Treasurer of the county for the proportion of said special tax belonging to an incorporated city.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. 'Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc.. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the court En.Banc.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by Division B.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Monroe County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the ‘court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Dade County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Wakulla County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. Where a party is confined in jail under a commitment issued upon an affidavit charging the offense in positive terms, the commitment and affidavit being in proper form, it is not competent for him in Plabeas Corpus proceedings to question the legality of his arrest by showing simply that the prosecuting witness or witnesses had no personal knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit, and thereby attempting to show a want of probable -cause.</p> <p>2. While the writ of Habeas Corpus is a writ of right in the enlarged sense of the term,’ it does not issue of course, 'but reasonable grounds must exist for awarding it, and if it appears on the face of the petition that the party in custody would only be remanded, the writ should be denied.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Walton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson• County.</p> <p>The ifacts in the case are stated in the opinion of the.court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Osceola County. Statement. On a former writ of error a judm'ent for Ryland was reversed because the declaration did not state a cause of action. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ryland, 50 Fla. 190, 40 South. Rep. 24. After the cause was remanded an amended declaration was filed.

<p>This case was decided by Division B.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Baker County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. Statement. On the 7th day of July, 1906, the plaintiff in error, R. L. Stringfellow, entered into a written agreement with Jones and Bell whereby the)'- were to provide all materials and perform all the work for the erection and completion for him of a brick veneered dwelling house on a certain described lot of ground in the city of Jacksonville, Florida.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case’was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Columbia County. The facts, in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Tliis case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Taylor County. Statement. The defendant in error, hereinafter called the plaintiff, brought an action at law' against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, on a fire insurance policy. The declaration substantially follows the statutory form in actions of this nature, and a copy of the insurance policy upon which the action is based is attached thereto.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County. v.- The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court. •

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are-stated.in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the Circuit Court En Banc.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the .court.

This case was decided fby the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit’ Co-urt for Santa Rosa County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Appeal 'from' the Circuit Court for Leon County.. The facts in the case are 'stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. Section 7, Article 12 of the Constitution of Florida of 1885, as amended, provides for the apportionment arid distribution of the State School Fund therein authorized to be made by law, and contemplates only an apportionment and distribution upon the basis of counties as units of such apportionment and distribution, and not upon the basis of particular schools as such units, and inasmuch as Section one (1) of Chapter 5381 Laws of 1905 undertakes to make certain schools in the State with an average attendance of 80 per cent, the beneficiaries of the act, the said act of the legislature is unconstitutional.</p> <p>2. Queare. Whether under the constitution the Legislature has authority to distribute the General Revenue Fund or any part of it for the support and maintenance of public free schools?</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The'facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Appeal from- the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>This case was decided by the Court E11 Banc.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B: Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua county The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County:. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the-court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from Circuit Court for Suwanee county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>1. The State by virtue of its sovereignty holds in trust for all the inhabitants of the State the title to the lands under the navigable waters within the State including the shore or space between high and low water marks.</p> <p>•2. The common law rights of riparian owners with reference to navigable waters are incident to the ownership of the uplands that extend to high water mark.</p> <p>.3. Riparian owners have no exclusive right to navigation in or commerce upon a navigable stream opposite the riparian holdings, and have no right to so use the water or land under it as to obstruct or unreasonably impede lawful navigation and commerce by others, or so as to unlawfully burden or monopolize navigation or commerce. The exclusive rights of a riparian owner are such as are necessary for the use and enjoyment of his abutting property and the business lawfully conducted thereon; and these rights may not be so exercised as to injure others in their lawful rights.</p> <p>4. The rights of the public in navigable streams for purposes of navigation are to use the waters and the shores to high water mark in a proper manner for transporting persons and property thereon subject to controlling provisions and principles of law. The right of navigation should be so exercised as not to infringe upon the lawful rights of others.</p> <p>5. A riparian owner may use the navigable waters and the lands thereunder opposite his land for purposes of navigation and of conducting commerce or business thereon, but such right is only concurrent with that of other inhabitants of the State and must be exercised subject to the rights-of others.</p> <p>6. A riparian owner has a right to enjoin in a proper proceeding the unlawful use of the public waters or the land thereunder including the shore which is a part of the bed, when such unlawful use operates as a special injury to such riparian owner in the use and enjoyment of his riparian lands.</p> <p>7. Where the waters of a navigable river are so used as to deprive a riparian holder of all access to the river from the land or to the land from the river or so as to injure the benefits and enjoyment of the riparian land or the business thereon, such use may be enjoined.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake county.. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion! ©f the.court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of. the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the -court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for De Soto County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. Statement.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

The case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Liberty County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion .of the court.</p>

<p>1. In a suit in equity, as well as in an action at law, every pleading, when properly attacked, is to be construed most strongly against the pleader thereof; so, in passing upon a demurrer to a bill in equity, every presumption is against the bill.</p> <p>2. Where there are contradictory or inconsistent allegations in a bill, its equity will be tested by the weaker rather than by the stronger allegations.</p> <p>3. A court of equity cannot grant relief when the complainant’s own showing in his bill demonstrates a want of equity in his prayer.</p> <p>4. A correct ruling of the trial court will not be disturbed by an appellate court because of erroneous or wrong reasons which .may have 'been given therefor, as it is with the ruling itself, and not with the reasons therefor, with which an appellate court is concerned. If a demurrer to a bill in equity should have been sustained on any of the grounds thereof, it is wholly immaterial that the trial court .may 'have given a wrong reason for a proper ruling.</p> <p>5. Where a bill in equity is filed against two or more defendants seeking an accounting, the payment of damages which the acts of the defendants may have occasioned the complainant, the partition of lands and for general relief, even if it be assumed that all such matters may be properly united in the same suit and relief had as to them, if it plainly appears from the allegations of the bill that the complainant had, parted with all his interest in the lands, out of which the controversy arose, such complainant has no locus standi in a forum of equity and the bill is demurrable.</p> <p>6. Where it plainly appears from the allegations of a bill in equity that the complainant has been guilty of laches in filing the same and in seeking relief, and no satisfactory reason is given for the same, such bill is demurrable.</p> <p>7. While the rule as to multifariousness .may, generally speaking, be said to be “one very much of convenience," and while there may not be “any positive inflexible rule as to what, in the sense of a court of equity, constitutes multifariousness, which is fatal to a suit on demurrer,” yet, broadly speaking, multifariousness in a bill may be defined as “the improperly joining in one bill distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding them.” There are at least two general and distinct forms of multifariousness, one consisting in uniting in the same bill distinct and disconnected subjects, matters or causes, the other consisting in joining in the same suit, either as complainants or defendants, parties who are without a common interest in the subj ect of the litigation and have no connection with each other. Whenever multifariousness plainly appears in a bill it is ground for demurrer.</p> <p>8. In Older to maintain a bill for partition, the complainant mwt show title or a right to partition. Where in a partition proceeding it appears that the complainant has no title to the lands sought to be partitioned, the bill should be dismissed, even though the complainant may have an equitable interest in the land which may be enforced in proper proceedings.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. The facts in -the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Married Woman's Law — Charging Separate Property of in Equity for Building Erected With Her Knowledge.</p> <p>Where the husband of a married woman enters into an agreement with building contractors for the erection, at an agreed price, of a building upon a lot that is the separate property of his wife, and the wife has knowledge of the erection of such building, and does not dissent thereto, but silently acquiesces in the erection thereof, such separate property of the wife may be charged in equity and sold for the collection of the agreed price of such building, if such agreed price is not unreasonable.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The facts in the ease are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the Court E11 Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County. Statement. On the 23rd of May, 1908, the appellant filed a bill in the Circuit Court of Hernando County to’ foreclose several mortgages theretofore executed to it by W. H. Cox and wife. The mortgages were given to secure certain notes, and in addition certain advances which were to be made by the appellant to said Cox in operating a turpentine business.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>This is a case of -original jurisdiction.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. .This is a case of original jurisdiction. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The facts in the base are stated in the opinion o E the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>This is a case of original jurisdiction.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts -in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the -court En Banc. Appeal from, the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, The facts in the case are stated in the opinion p-f the court.

This case -was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the cáse are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion county; William S. Bullock, Judge.</p>

<p>Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon county; John W. Malone, Judge.</p>

<p>Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon county; John W. Malone, Judge.</p>

<p>Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon county; John W. Malone, Judge.</p>