The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1883-01-02
DanicfF. Sullivan, Appellant, vs. James N No
feno, Appellee Escambia county.
w EsIha1-r J.,

feAo, Appellee Escambia county.
wEsnt srr, j.
!. Ix@,n bill filed and notice of intended ap-
plicatis,i for injunction, the defendant may at
once fFs,ihis answer and the rules governing the
&C, ionfT the chancellor will be the same as those
which, Ftvail upon hearing upon bill and answer.
. 1k,e r;lle in This State anterior TO the legis-
laton Of 1861, Chap.i09S Laws was that where
all th9eguties of the bill are denied by the an
swcr, y not Of course to dissolve the injunction
The gtanling and continuing of injunctions vest
in the gdiscreti"n of the court to be governed by
the nftIye and circumstances of the case" Un-
der thu legislation referred TO either party in such
case lSs the right TO introduce evidence in sup
pot or dtnial OF the bill and the accomanying
afhdatsi or answer, and the chancellor deter
niincsSke matter according 10 the weight OF the
evideL &c, TIL, rule stated modified to this ex-
tent. 3Tbef cases OF Carter vs.. Bennett, 6 Fla,
23i, Lknlon vs. Denham, Fla, 533, and Allen
VS.. Ha~H,y, Fla, l42, referred to and followed
3. Isa case where the bill sets up particular
title akd the answer in responsive terms denies
its exi9ttnce, AID defendant produces a duly Ger
tilted COPY of added showing the nature Of the
title in AID OF tis responsive denial the fact that
the pltRtif fails to explain the matter or TO sup
port hE 81 egation is a circumstance which should
have weight with the chancellor.
4. Where the injury complained of is one aEis-
ing frttn DE right OF property in the soil such
continped trespasses amounting to q nuisance or
threatsned irreparable injury, plaintiff should set
up his .tlle in terms clearly showing his owner
ship. 4
8. Ussier The legislation of this State the title
10 The submerged soil from the channel to the
shore i Ein such riparian proprietor as is contem-
patefSeg the act of December 81, 1856 That
act 10 ]9nsiiiutc riparian proprietorship requires
water boundary aud an allegation by plaintiff
that re party through whom he claims title
owneS4tila possessed parcels of land +" lying on
In hut hod l,oon 60 IN
years III Nuie' Possession AMI enjoyment of all
The riglts.rI a Riparian proprietor does not con-
stitute sufficient allegation of riparian proprie-
tr>hiE, Lying upon the bay" does not neces-
sarily !A,astitute a water boundary and the exer-
else os Gre tights of a riparian owner does not
n'ressktTy make him such owner Where plain
I'M set&S extraordinary relief by injunction on
the grR4ad of a particular title. his allegations
mast e fh'er and precise as to such title.
D. Si1Af'e occupancy and possession of part OF
the sol. between The line of ordinary high tides
and lhf sdge of tie channelin the navigable wa
teTs of a.bsy do not give right to redress inju-
ries to.rghts Of owners of other portions of this
soil n9s Illus occupied This action is for the
true o~Atef of thai soil. Quere: Whether since
Inc aci,Y 1865 as between grantor and grantee
Smplesfparian boundary as contemplated by the
ACT fN$a5 operates 10y legal presumption TO
carry TIE Fight TO The soil TO the edge of the chan
mel?
AnsilSht III Hce passage In or Inc naHlga-
ZION of{Ee waters of port is subordinate TO the
gcn'raa su.nmefcial interests of such port and
when 9srt IS cslnilici navigation must yield TO
cornmeEfA The power of passage upon or nav
igationM such waters may be destroyed by fill
ing the space before Tint time occupied by water
WIN maternal necessary or proper to be used in
tho CONSTRUCTION OF structures beneficial to COM
mefce tpd such structures are not nuisances
either Iaaa:ic or private
s Clestir the laws of this State wbaryes when
constru'Sed by riparian proprietor are not pur-
pres'ures phr are they to be presumed to be nui-
Sauces as csaas!ltuing an obstruction to commerce
They aE structures authorized by the sovereign
and by4:R declared 10 be beneficial to commerce
Sn also u Ele depsssit of stone or otherlike mate
rial in II. waters Of bay from the shore line to
the chaEne# authorized by law. All this is, how
ever, subject TO the condition that the wharf
constructet OF the deposit made is to be for the
benent n the commerce Of the port
.. PlFatifs alleging obstruction TO navigation
by the 4.yastruc,i0n of a wharf or the deposit oil
sand i'm aaFigable waters of bay does not make
a case Of aaisance. Being authorized by law the
presunI4atn is that this is for the benefit of COM
merce sSdihe should state facts showing the con-
trary. Iehat is authorized by law cannot be
held to De nuisance upon the assumption thai
ccndilinK upon which the authority Is exercised
has not been complied with. From the general
allegati4s chat wharf Is being constructed 10
navigaHa waters the presumption Is that such
wharf will be beneficial to commerce. and Is not
injuriOuF 70; commerce or q nuisance.
Qrdes3graniing injunction reversed.
John All Henderson for Appellant; J. p Jones
and E. II Perry for Appellee.