State v. Busbee

43 So. 2d 711, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1090
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 18, 1949
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 So. 2d 711 (State v. Busbee) 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
State v. Busbee, 43 So. 2d 711, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1090 (Fla. 1949).

Opinion

Appellants, relators below, brought an action in the nature of quo warranto in which they sought an ouster of certain lands owned by them and which, by special act of the legislature in 1947, Sp.Acts 1947, c. 24540, were incorporated into and became a part of the Town of Groveland. Trial before a jury was waived and the Circuit Judge, after having heard all the testimony and having made a personal inspection of the subject land, entered a final judgment in which he made the following finding of fact:

"The evidence and the personal inspection of the several parcels of land sought to be ousted, and other territory within the jurisdiction of the Town of Groveland, leaves me with the opinion that the lands sought to be ousted receive as muchbenefit as any other property within the Town of Groveland. These benefits consist of an ample supply of pure water, a measure of fire protection, and by those small town police and sanitary regulations and service." (Italics supplied.)

In the case of Smith v. Town of Montverde, Fla., 38 So.2d 135, we held:

"Where town comprised approximately 1,360 acres, and lands sought to be excluded from town totaled about 450 acres, and were not urban, but rural, and were not susceptible of municipalbenefits commensurately with other property located within thetown, and there was no showing that inequity would result from exclusion, lands would be excluded on petition of the landowners." (Italics supplied.)

The foregoing rule is applicable to the instant case. Its application necessitates a judgment of affirmance because there is substantial evidence which sustains the finding made by the learned Circuit Judge and it has not been clearly demonstrated *Page 712 that the judgment is against the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.

Affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN, and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Town of Malabar v. State ex rel. Estate of Nelson
195 So. 2d 43 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Klemm v. City of Winter Haven
114 So. 2d 11 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Gulfview Properties, Inc. v. Town of Mary Esther
94 So. 2d 814 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1957)
State ex rel. Miller v. City of Leesburg
2 Fla. Supp. 30 (Lake County Circuit Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 So. 2d 711, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-busbee-fla-1949.