Case ID: fla_73/html/0661-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Florida, ex rel., C. P. Townsend, et al., County Commissioners of St. Johns County, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Florida Coast Line Canal and Transportation Company, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.
    
    Opinion Filed March 20, 1917.
    Tn nroceedinsts brought by County Commissioners as relators, a canal comoany will not by mandamus be required to construct a drawbridge over its canal at a point where a road existed before the canal was constructed, when the evidence shows that a bridve in use at another point over the canal meets all reasonable requirements and the benefit to the public will not bear some fair relation to the expense to the canal comnanv of another brídete and to the inconvenience and risk the bridve would be to the public use of tile canal for transportation purposes, particularly when it d^es not clearly appear that the road was in fact a public road over which the county commissioners had authority.
    Writ of Error to Circuit Court for St. Johns Count)''; George Couper Gibbs, Judge. •
    Affirmed.
    
      MacWilliams & Bassett, for Plaintiffs in Error;
    
      C. M. Cooper, for Defendant in Error.
   Per Curiam.

The County Commissioners of St. Johns County brought mandamus proceedings, in the Circuit Court to compel the canal company to- build a draw bridge over its canal at a point where a road existed when the canal was constructed. A referee heard the case on the pleadings and the evidence and gave judgment for the respondent. The relators took writ of error.

The evidencé shows that a bridge over the canal in use at another point meets all reasonable requirements and that the benefits to the public of another bridge over the canal at the point named will not bear a fair relation to the expense to the canal company of another bridge and to the risk and inconvenience the bridge would be to the public use of the canal for transportation purposes ; and it does not clearly appear that the road was in fact a public road over which the county commissioners had authority. Under these circumstances the' canal company will not by mandamus be required to construct the drawbridge

Affirmed.

Browne/C. J.,. and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.