South Florida Farms Co. v. Goodno

94 So. 672, 84 Fla. 532
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 15, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 94 So. 672 (South Florida Farms Co. v. Goodno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
South Florida Farms Co. v. Goodno, 94 So. 672, 84 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1922).

Opinions

Whitfield, J.

In an action of ejectment brought by the South Florida Farms Company against Goodno to recover “all of Section Twenty-eight (28) Township Forty-two (42) South, Range Thirty (30) East, except a surveyed portion thereof, containing 27.50 acres, in the northeast corner thereof according- to and as shown by Government plat, and all of Section Thirty (30) in Township Forty-two (42) South, Range Thirty (30) East, except Government Lots One (1), Two (2) and Three (3), and S. Yz of S. E. % thereof as shown by Government Plat, containing about 950.40 acres,” there was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff took writ of error.

It appears that all the land in Sections 28 and 30 of Township 42 South of Range 30 East, was swamp and overflowed land that was granted to the state by the Act of [541]*541Congress, approved September 28th, 1850. It also appears that Goodno claims under a patent issued to the State on February 14, 1880, covering “the whole of fractional sections twenty-eight * and thirty * in township forty-two south of range thirty east * according to the official plats of survey of the said lands, returned to the general land office by the surveyor general.”

The Act of Congress granting swamp and overflowed lands to the States, is not a grant of such lands by legal subdivisions. It grants “the whole of those swamp and overflowed lands, made unfit thereby for cultivation. ’ ’ The Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to transmit to the Governor of the State accurate lists and plats of the lands granted, and upon request to issue patents therefor.

Where the whole of a township or of a section is “swamp and overflowed land” that is “wet and unfit for cultivation,” within the meaning of the Act of Congress of September 28, 1850, a subdivisional survey of the' township or section would not be necessary to enable the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether “the greater part of” the township or section is “wet and unfit for cultivation,” so as to be covered by the grant; but in such cases the lists and plats of the lands may be made by reference to surveyed lines and their projected extensions or to natural boundaries, and patents may be issued for the lands that are within the grant according to such lists and plats whether the lands be surveyed or unsurveyed. See 19 L. D. 251, 24 L. D. 147; 8 L. D. 65 and 369.

A section of land, as a legal subdivision under the Congressional rules of survey, is a mile square, and usually contains 640 acrs. When a section is not whole or regular in its contents, that is where it does not contain approximately 640 acres, it may properly be called a “fractional [542]*542section.” Where because Of the presence of a permanent body of water which is approximately meandered in making the survey, there is a deficiency in the area of ,a section, it is referred to as a “fractional section.” In such cases the water lines and not the meander lines may control as boundaries even though there may be some land between the meander line and the water line. See Railroad Co. v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 272; Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen, 238 U. S. 325, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 755; Greene v. United States, 274 Fed. Rep. 145; Lane v. United States, 274 Fed. Rep. 290; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 819, 840; 9 C. J. 190. And where the grantee’s boundary lines make him a riparian owner, the nature and extent of such grantee’s title to lands under the water to which his boundaries extend, are controlled by the laws of the State. Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808, 838; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548. In Florida a riparian owner upon navigab'e waters takes 'to ordinary high water mark. Broward v. Mabry, 58 Fla. 398, 50 South. Rep. 826; State ex rel. Ellis v. Gerbing, 56 Fla. 603, 47 South. Rep. 353; Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544, 82 South. Rep. 221.

Where the area to constitute a whole or regular section of land is in place, but, because a portion of the land is, at the time of the survey, temporarily flooded, or is of such a nature that it cannot then be readily surveyed, or where the surveyors or officials negligently or purposely do not survey such portion, the survey may subsequently be completed. Meanwhile the surveyed portion is referred to .as a “fi’actional section;” and in such case a conveyance of the “fractional section” is, in general, controlled in its boundaries by the survey and meander lines.- Where a fractional section is patented in accordance with the plat of survey, and the meander lines of the survey do not approx[543]*543imately conform to a permanent water line that is referred to in the survey field notes a.nd plats, the conveyance covers only the surveyed land in the section. See 17 L. D. 355; Horne v. Smith, 159 U. S. 40, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988; Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U. S. 300, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124; French-Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U. S. 47, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563; Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 24; 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21; Jeems Bayou Hunting & Fishing Club v. United States, 274 Fed. Rep. 18; United States v. Lee Wilson & Co., 214 Fed. Rep. 630; Lord v. Curry,71 Fla. 68, 71 South. Rep. 21.

Where public lands are patented “according to the official plat of the survey returned to the General Land Office by the Surveyor General, ’ ’ the notes, lines, landmarks and other particulars appearing upon the plat become as much a part of the patent, and are as such to be considered in determining what 'it is intended1 to include, as if they were set forth in it. The Swamp Land Act of 1850 in itself passed to the State only an inchoate title, and not until the lands were listed and patented under the act could the title become perfect. Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee Dist., 232 U. S. 186, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 297; Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 24, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21; Greene v. United States, 74 Fed. Rep. 145; Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States, 227 Fed. Rep. 827, 142 C. C. A. 351; United States v. Lee Wilson, 214 Fed. Rep. 630.

The rule of general application is that where a patent to public land refers to the field notes and plats of an official survey, which field notes and plats show that the land is bounded by a permanent body of water, and that in making the official survey the waters were in fact faithfully meandered, the water line, and not the meander line is in general the boundary. See St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schur[544]*544meier, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 272, 19 L. Ed. 74; Lane v. United States, 274 Fed. Rep. 290, and authorities cited. 9 C. J. 189.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nourachi v. United States
632 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (M.D. Florida, 2009)
Coastal Petroleum v. American Cyanamid
492 So. 2d 339 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1985
STATE, ETC. v. Contemporary Land Sales, Inc.
400 So. 2d 488 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
St. Joseph Land & Development Co. v. Florida State Board of Trustees
365 So. 2d 1084 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Opinion No. Oag 64-78, (1978)
67 Op. Att'y Gen. 238 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1978)
Connery v. Perdido Key, Inc.
270 So. 2d 390 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Lilygren v. Rogers
459 P.2d 44 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1969)
Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Wetstone
222 So. 2d 10 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1969)
Lopez v. Smith
145 So. 2d 509 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
TRUSTEES OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF STATE OF FLORIDA v. Toffel
145 So. 2d 737 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Forman v. Florida Land Holding Corp.
121 So. 2d 784 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1960)
Ruyle v. Dolly
110 So. 2d 467 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
St. of Fla., Ex Rel. Town of Crescent v. Holland
10 So. 2d 577 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
United States v. Otley
34 F. Supp. 182 (D. Oregon, 1940)
Goodno v. South Florida Farms Co.
116 So. 23 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Martin v. Busch
112 So. 274 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 So. 672, 84 Fla. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-florida-farms-co-v-goodno-fla-1922.