Summary
In Van Allen v. Town of Ocean Ridge, Fla. 1950, 46 So.2d 452, the Court affirmed a decree for the defendant town and distinguished certain previous cases upon the basis: "In these cases it was conclusively shown that the lands in question received no benefit whatever from the city facilities and that they were so devoid of any prospect of receiving any, that they were eliminated."
Summary of this case from Town of Medley v. McCahillOpinion
May 30, 1950. Rehearing Denied June 12, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, C.E. Chillingworth, J.
Beacham Gaulden, John R. Beacham and Raymond R. Richardson, all of West Palm Beach, for appellants.
W.F. Finch, and Winters, Foskett, Cook Tylander, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
Pursuant to Section 171.02, F.S.A. appellants brought separate petitions to exclude certain of their lands from the Town of Ocean Ridge. The basis for the exclusion being that the lands are "virtually or commensurately excluded from the benefits of such municipal * * * corporation" because of distance from the settled part of the Town and for other reasons not necessary to detail. The questions presented in each suit being identical, the cases were consolidated for trial. On final hearing the chancellor found for defendants and dismissed the petitions. A consolidated appeal was prosecuted.
The question for determination is whether or not the lands that petitioners propose to exclude are benefited by reason of the fact that they are within the corporate limits of the Town of Ocean Ridge.
Appellants contend that the decree of the chancellor answering this question in the affirmative should be reversed on authority of State ex rel. Landis v. Town of Boynton Beach, 129 Fla. 528, 177 So. 327 and State ex rel. Ervin v. City of Oakland Park, Fla., 42 So.2d 270. In these cases it was conclusively shown that the lands in question received no benefit whatever from the city facilities and that they were so devoid of any prospect of receiving any, that they were eliminated No such situation is made to appear in this case.
In the cases at bar it is true that the petitions allege all that is necessary to exclude the lands from the municipality, but the answer of the defendant tendered an issue on this point, evidence was taken and the chancellor found that conditions were different from those in the cases relied on and that the lands in the instant cases did in fact receive benefits in the way of street improvements, water, police protection, fire protection, garbage and trash disposal and have good prospects of receiving other benefits by reason of being within the municipality.
The record has been examined and we find evidence to support the finding and decree of the chancellor. We find no countervailing evidence that in anywise attempts to offset or counterbalance that on which the final decree was predicated. It is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.