Duval County v. Bancroft, (1928)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 5
Judges: WHITFIELD, P. J. —
Attorneys: John E. Mathews, for Plaintiff in Error;
George C. Bedell and Wm. C. Guthrie, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jul. 03, 1928
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This writ of error was taken to a judgment for the plaintiff against the county in an action *Page 129 of ejectment. The controversy concerns the dedication of a park not within any municipality. It appears that in 1907 a plat of "Lakeside Park" in Duval County, was recorded showing a triangular piece of land numbered 87 and surrounded by streets or roads and marked "Park." In 1908 another plat of Lakeside Park showing the same streets or roads and "Park," was recorded. Lots were sold to homebui
Summary: This writ of error was taken to a judgment for the plaintiff against the county in an action *Page 129 of ejectment. The controversy concerns the dedication of a park not within any municipality. It appears that in 1907 a plat of "Lakeside Park" in Duval County, was recorded showing a triangular piece of land numbered 87 and surrounded by streets or roads and marked "Park." In 1908 another plat of Lakeside Park showing the same streets or roads and "Park," was recorded. Lots were sold to homebuil..
More
Parks are often beneficial, especially in cities, but they can hardly be considered as indispensably necessary outside the crowded urban centers of population. It has not been customary for counties to acquire or maintain public parks. Prior to Chap. 10277, effective June 11, 1925, powers to acquire property for park purposes had not been expressly granted to counties, and I do not believe this power existed theretofore by implication as being essential to the exercise of any power which had been granted. Hopkins v. Special Road Dist., 73 Fla. 251; Earle v. Dade County, 109 So. R. 331; 92 Fla. 432; 15 C. J. 531. Therefore the acceptance by resolution in May, 1921, was unauthorized. There was no sufficient proof of acceptance by public user. Hence the revocation of the dedication by deed took place before the offer to dedicate had been lawfully accepted.
ELLIS, C. J., concurs.
Source: CourtListener
