The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1882-08-01
HEAD-NOTES OF DECISIONS
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
June Term. a. -. ISs3.
The City of Jacksonville, Plaintiff in Error, VS.
Columbus Drew, Jr., Defendant in Error =

The City of jacksonville, Plaintiff in Error, VS.
Columbus Drew, Jr., Defendant in Error
Duval county
VAN VALKENBURGH, j.:
|. municipal corporation, under the general
act OF incorporation in this State (McClcllans
Digest, "a y has the entire control and supervs-
ion OF the streets, lanes, avenues &c within its
corporate limits
2. An action will lie against a municipal cor
pnrliOn Ion a Special l,,, H.
iIOnfeasance breach of duty, in failing 10 Keep
its streets, DC, in repair: (:i Fla, 1877
3. Bridges within the limits of the corporation
are parts of the street within, or upon which
they are erected. and are consequently under
the control of the municipal author tiles in the
same manner and To the same extent are the
other portions of the streets
A. 4 municipal corporation is liable in dam
ages to parties receiving special injuries by
son Ol its nOn-olservance of duty in the Keeping
its streets, alleys and bridges in good repair and
ii cannot escape Its responsibility for such inju-
ries upon the plea that il had entered into CON
tract with another party tn repair such streets.
alleys and bridges.
Judgment affirmed.
J. f Hnrtridge, for Plaintiff in Error; Julius
Drew Tor Defendant in Error.
Cyprian T. jenkins, Appellant, VS.. II. T. Lykes
and n. Barco. AppeIlets-IIernando county
RANDALL, G. j..
1 Where "a sale Of timber is made and the
contract in writing gives the purchaser reason
able time 10 cut II, parOl testimony tending Ia
show that" reasonable time meant IA stated time
spoken of by the parties before signing the con
tract is not admissible, as it would change the
terms of The contract. What is reasonable time
to cut the timber is question Oi fact To be de-
iermined 10y the jury upon evidence ON that
subject.
. When The jndge signing IA bill of exceptions
attests that general exception was taken 10 the
whole charge Ia The jury and no specific eXcep
ton was taken tO any paragraph the court on
appeal will not notice errors in the charge not
specifically excepted Ia unless the charge Is crro
neOus as II whole. Parties should point out To
the judge The portions excepted 10 before the
jury leave the box.
3 4 deed OF land does not convey 10 the pur-
chaser timber cut and lying on The ground.
T. A parol sale of standing trees though void
a. a sale OF an interest in land operates as a Ii
cense To enter and cut the trees and until revoked
such licens,. will estop the seller from suing in
| trcspass trOver. Timber SO cut is the personal
property of The party buying and cutting the
| trees.
;. A parol license to cut trees is revoked by a
| sale and conveyance of the land by the licensor
| tn a third person.
o. When a purchaser of land sues one having
"A license from the former owner la cut trees, for
| cutting and carrying away timber, he can re-
| cover only for such cutting and damage as was
done 10 the realty afler the delivery OF the deed
10 the purchaser, and not for the value Of timber
| previously cut, but taken away after the deed.
Z. A., acting with The consent of the owners of
land sold to j., the cedar standing or fallen 10 be
| cut on owners land and in his own name in
| writing agreed to defend him in the same
Afterwards A. purchased the land. Such pur-
chase did not terminate the license tO cut the
cedar growing out Ot the sale thereof, but was
| rather an affirmance and continuation of il.
s. The owner of land, though not in actual
| possession, may maintain trespaSs for AN injury
thereto against n wrong doer. n legal title
draws after it right of possession as against
/ such trespasser.
o. Where in an action of trespass to recover
the value OF timber cut and taken from land, the
| Jury have under erroneous Instructions given a
| much greater verdict than is warranted by the
proofs and the defendant appears to have suffered
injustice thereby, the verdict should be set aside
and q new trial granted.
judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
| j. r. Magbce, for Appellant John A. Hen
dersOn, for Appellea
Manuel Palmes, as Collector of Revenue for the
State of Florida and Escambia County, Appel
lant vs. The Louisville and Nashville Rail
road Company, Respondent - Escambia
County.
WEsrcoTT, j.:
l. This court in the case of Gonzalez vs. Sulli
van, held that the exemption of the railroad anC
its appurtenaDces extending from Pensacola Z,
the northern boundary line oil Florida in the di
rection Of Montgomery, Alabama, was exemp
from taxation in the hands of parties who de
rived it by q succession OF transfers from tn
corporation originally owning the road. Thi
upon the ground that the exemption attached 4
the ran and was not n personal privilege or i'm
munity restricted in its operation TO the corpora
ton owning the road al the time the exemption
attached. Since that decision the Suprem
Court Of the United States, in deciding the cas-
Of Wilson vs.. Gaines, lob U. s., All, has ex
pressed views which we cannot say with abso
lutte certainty will not, when applied 10 the fact
existing here result In restricting the operation
the immunity 10 the corporation owning the roa
when II was granted. As under the Constitution
Of the United States matters concerning the obi