71 Fla. 419 | Fla. | 1916
Appellant and appellee claim conflicting rights in the use of submerged land lying between certain upland lots and a channel in St. Andrews Bay, a
Upon the admission of Florida into the Union, the State by virtue of its sovereignty became the owner of all lands under navigable waters within the State, including the shores or space between ordinary high and low water marks, such State ownership being for the benefit of the people of the State to be used for purposes of navigation, commerce, fishing, etc., subject to such regulations as may be provided by law for the general welfare. The State may in the interest of the public welfare make limited dispositions of portions of the lands under navigable waters within its borders, or may permit the use thereof, when the rights of the whole people of the State as to navigation and other lawful uses of the waters are not materially impaired. State ex rel. Ellis v. Gerbing, 56 Fla. 603, 47 South. Rep. 353; Broward v. Mabry, 58 Fla. 398, 50 South. Rep. 826.
By Chapter 791, Acts of 1856, entitled “An Act to Benefit Commerce,” the lawmaking power of the State recited that “it is for the benefit of commerce that wharves be built,” etc.', and enacted that the State be divested “of all right, title and interest to all lands covered by water, lying in front of any tract of land owned by a citizen of the United States, or by the United States for public purposes, lying upon any navigable stream or bay of the sea or harbor, as far as to the edge of the channel, and vested the full title to the same in and to the riparian proprietors, giving them the full right and privilege to build wharves into streams or waters of the bay or harbor as far as may be necessary to effect the purposes described, and to fill up from the shore, bank or beach as far as may be desired, not obstructing the channel, but leaving full space for the requirements of commerce,
This statute “does not vest in riparian owners an unqualified fee in the lands below high water mark and out to the edge of the channel-in navigable streams, bays of the sea, or harbors, of this State. So long as such submerged lands remain unimproved by the construction of wharves, or unreclaimed by filling in from the shore and converting the water into land, the riparian owner, though the legal title is in him, has in so far as the statute is concerned, no greater right to the beneficial use of such submerged lands and the waters above them, than any other citizen except for the purpose of protecting from invasion the right to improve which the statute gives. State v. Black River Phosphate Co., 32 Fla. 82, 13 South. Rep. 640.
The State may fix the exterior lines of a navigable river if the rights of the people to the use of the waters and the shores of the river are not thereby substantially impaired; and rights in the submerged lands not within the reasonably fixed exterior lines of the river may be granted by legislative authority if such grant does not impair the rights of the whole people to the use of the waters for any purpose expressed or implied by law.
The rights granted by the riparian statute of 1856 relate to the space between the shore line and the edge of the channel of navigable streams, bays or harbors, and such rights are not controlled by the direction of lines dividing the uplands.
As the rights granted by the riparian Act of 1856, Sections 643, 644, General Statutes of 1906, extend to
Assuming that the riparian rights acquired under the quoted statute by the owner of lands “lying upon” a navigable stream, bay or harbor within the State, may be alienated separate from the lands to which they attached under the statute, such alienation can carry no greater right than the original owner had by virtue of the conditions and limitations contained in the statute making the qualified grant to stated classes of riparian owners. See Rivas v. Solary, 18 Fla. 122; Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200; State v. Black River Phosphate Co., 32 Fla. 82, 13 South. Rep. 640.
A conveyance of land to which riparian rights to submerged lands are attached under the statute may carry the riparian rights unless such rights are reserved or a contrary intent appears from the conveyance. Axline v. Shaw, 35 Fla. 305, 17 South. Rep. 411.
The railroad company owns a portion at least of Block 27, and the Ice Company a portion of Block 31 of a plat made in 1888. Both lots as claimed by the parties are opposite and extend to the waters of St. Andrews Bay. Block 27 being northwest of Block 31, the water line running northwest and southeast past these and many other blocks. See plats.
The appellant, Panama Ice and Fish Company’s claim of title is as follows:
G. B. Thompson, who in 1888 owned and made the record plat of the lands, in August, 1905, conveyed to G. M. West Block 31, as platted by G. B. Thompson and
On August 13, 1908, O. E. Williams and others conveyed to the Panama Ice Company a tract of land bounded by a line beginning at a point on the low water line of the shore of St. Andrews Bay due south of the southeast corner of Block thirty-one (31) of G. B. Thompson’s platting of U. S. Government lot number two (2) of Section eight (8) Township four (4) south, range 14 west, as recorded in Book 1 at page 594 in 1888, of the records of Washington County, Florida, running thence due north through the said southeast corner of said block thirty-one (31) to Gravier Street; thence west along said Gravier Street a distance of one hundred and fifty (150) feet; thence due south to the low water line of said St. Andrews Bay; thence along the said low wa
On March 10, 1913, O. E. Williams and others executed to the Panama Ice Company a further conveyance so as to cover “all the interest which the parties (Williams and others) acquired under that certain deed from the Gulf Coast Development Company, dated the first day of May, 1908, which the parties (Williams and others) had not described in that certain deed executed by the parties (Williams and others) on the 13th day of August, 1908, to the” Panama Ice Company. On April 9, 1913, the Panama Ice Company conveyed the property to T. H. Moore and on August 8, 1913, T. H. Moore and wife conveyed the property to the Panama Ice & Fish Company. A Certificate made by the Town Clerk stated that on May 3, 1909, the Town Council vacated the street along the beach in Panama City as shown by the minutes of the Town.
The claim of title of the Atlanta and St. Andrews Bay Railway Company, the appellee, is as follows:
On August 22, 1905, G. B. Thompson conveyed to G. M. West “Block 27 except one acre on north end of said Block, all the above being platted by G. B. Thompson and filed in Clerk’s Office * * * situated in lot (2) U. S. or commonly described as N ½ of Sec. 8, T. 4 S. R. 14 W., with riparian rights in Bay as law directs.” On October 31, 1905, G. M. West conveyed the same property to the Gulf Coast Development Company. On March 27, 1906, the Gulf Coast Development Company contracted to convey to the Atlanta and St. Andrews Bay Railway Company “one tract or parcel of land ten (10) feet in width along the water fronts of Block twenty-two (22), twenty-one (21), twenty-six (26), twenty-seven (27) and a lot lying on the water front south of block
On August 11, 1908, the conveyance was made to the railroad company. These statements as to claims of title show that both parties claim through the Gulf Coast Development Company, which latter company received on October 31, 1905, from G. M. West a conveyance of property in the plat including “block thirty-one (31) * * * and all of block twenty-seven (27), except one acre on the north end of said block * * * together with all riparian rights appertaining to the above property.” The development company received also on April 9, 1908, a conveyance from G. B. Thompson, who platted the land and sold the blocks as above stated to West, covering “all that land situated and being on and in the southwest side of the street designated as Bay Street on the plat,” having reference to the space between Block 31 and the Bay. The Gulf Coast Development then apparently owned the riparian rights that were incident to Block 31, which riparian rights were apparently south of the riparian rights to Block 27 also owned by the Development Company. The property conveyed by the Development Company was described as “a strip of land ten feet in width along the water front of Blocks * * * twenty-seven and a lot” so described as perhaps to touch the portion of Block 31 now owned by the appellant Ice Company, “with
This simplifies the consideration of and disposes of the appellee railroad company’s claim of title to the riparian rights lying between the Ice Company’s land in Block 31 and the channel of the Bay.
The first part of the description in the conveyance from the G. C. D. Co. to Williams et al., the predecessors in title to appellant is in effect as follows, to-wit: from the water line due south of the southeast corner of Block 31, thence due north to Gravier Street, thence due west along Gravier Street 150 feet, thence due south to the low water mark on St. Andrews Bay, thence in a southeasterly direction along said low water mark to the point of beginning.
This description carried the statutory riparian rights incident to the land, viz: the lands covered by water lying in front of the tract of land so described as far as to the edge of the channel, no contrary intent appearing by reservation or otherwise. The latter part of the description in the conveyance from the G. C. D. Co. to Williams
The evidence is sufficient to show that by silent acquiescence of its predecessors in title the Ice Company is estopped from complaining of the existence of the present wharf structure on its riparian rights between its land in Block 31 and the channel of the Bay. This, however, does not take from the Ice Company its legal rights under the statute of 1856 conferring riparian rights. The Ice Company may construct its wharf over or under or across the railroad company’s wharf if no unnecessary injury is done to the latter wharf. Such crossing does not present the question determined in Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. McRainey, 69 Fla. 462, 68 South. Rep. 763.
The decree is reversed with directions for further proceeding in accordance herewith.