Legal Opinion · Dissent

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage District

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided January 14, 1958No. 16590_1Published

1DissentRives, Circuit Judge

I agree with the learned district judge that the Florida Drainage District “had no authority to bind itself as an indemnitor as consideration for the acquisition of an easement.” Further, it seems to me that what the Drainage District actually acquired from the Railroad does not rise to the dignity of an easement, but is nothing more than a mere license. That is shown by the contract as a whole and particularly by paragraph 7 thereof:

“7. The Railway may terminate this agreement at any time by giving the Licensee thirty days notice, in writing, of its intention so to do, and upon termination…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Burford v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Meredith v. Winter HavenSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. HuffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  4. Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
  5. Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API