Title: Lungren et al. v. Strawn et al.
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004432/00001
 Material Information
Title: Lungren et al. v. Strawn et al.
Physical Description: Photograph
Language: English
Publisher: Southern Reporter, 2d Series
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Lungren et al. v. Strawn et al. (JVD Box 86)
General Note: Box 22, Folder 2 ( Groundwater - Old Florida and California Cases - 1900's ), Item 18
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004432
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text


LUNGREN v. STRAWN
9 Soid 195


standard can be attained, we may expect ad-
mlinitrative boards and other agencies to
take the place of the courts and the law
practice to go the way of old dobbin and the
family buggy, the hitching post, and the
whipping post.
[4] The trial court found defendant to
be an unfaithful steward and entered a
judgment of disbarment against him. We
have examined the record and measured by
the standard here proclaimed he could have
reached no other judgment. If all lawyers
practiced by the methods he pursued, the ad-
ministration of justice would soon become
host for a brood of evils that would disinte-
grate and destroy it. He appears to have
overlooked the element of fidelity to his
client, to the Court, and the State.
[5J The only other question remaining
to be considered is that of the taxation of
costs. It is admitted that defendant paid his
own costs and one half the cost of the court
reporter. The trial court taxed him with
the balance of the costs or $438.
Appellee contends that a disbarment pro-
ceeding is in the nature of a civil case and
that the cost should follow the losing party
but the rule seems to be that there must be
some statutory authority for costs and we
find none in this case.
It follows that the final decree is reversed
in so far as it imposes costs on appellant but
in all other respects it is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

BROWN, C. J., and WHITFIELD, BU-
FORD, CHAPMAN, THOMAS, and
ADAMS, JJ., concur.







Frank DOMINGO and G. V. Lopez, Appel-
lants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.
May 29, 1942.
Rehearing Denied July 24, 1942.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record;
tillsborough County; John R. Himes,
Judge.
Cyrus W. Fields, of Tampa, for appel-
lants.


Irriaio-i f{ (FlaK. 1
Fla- 195


J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Millard B.
Conklin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Woodrow
M. Melvin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-
pellee.

PER CURIAM.
The questions presented in this case
are identical with two of those disposed
of by the opinion in Tony LaBarbara, Ap-
pellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee, Fla.,
8 So.2d 662, filed May 29, 1942. On au-
thority of that decision the judgment of the
lower court is affirmed.

BROWN, C. J., and TERRELL, CHAP-
MAN, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Ke *Oimmo SKsu



LUNGREN et al, v: STRAWN et al.
Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.
July 10, 1942.
Appeal and error ~t>1009(I)
A decree denying plaintiffs an injunction
to enjoin defendants from allegedly exces-
sive pumping of water from a lake for irri-
gation purposes was required to be affirmed
where it did not appear to be erroneous un-
der the evidence and the issues made.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia
County; George William Jackson, Judge.
Suit by H. L Lungren and others against
Candace Strawn and others to enjoin the
allegedly excessive pumping of water from
a fresh water lake for irrigation purposes.
From a decree dismissing the bill of com-
plaint, the plaintiffs appeal
Decree affirmed.
Tom B. Stewart, of De Land, for ap-
pellants.
Murray Sams and Neill S. Jackson, both
of DeLand, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing
a second amended bill of complaint seeking
to enjoin alleged excessive pumping of
water from a fresh water lake for irriga-
tion purposes by a riparian owner to the
alleged injury of other riparian owners.







9 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES


The decree contains the following:
"It appearing to the Court that the plain-
tiffs are owners of properties bordering
on or near Lake Hires in Volusia Coun-
ty, Florida, and the defendant Candace
Strawn, also owns two properties with
"citrus groves thereon, bordering on Lake
Hires; that the defgd -
dace Strawn for mf ..y t h hrn ir-
iiating particularly in dry seasons, her
citrus grovs n h.r nrsnnrti v nume-
nm water from the waters of said lake
means o rrza~ion ums; that
the la s see to restra thedefeda ts
from further min o
said lakei e Pm s1 t the fn-ve
sive um o the waters therefrom has
lowered the level of the lake to such an
ext en that t it cit and a.ai-
cutural crons oj their respective proper-
ties borderin on sad a been an d -
ag by; that the defendants'
answer denies that the defendants have
pumped or used excessive or unreason-
able amounts of waters from said lake or
that the level of the lake has been ap-
preciably lowered by reason of such pump-
ing and denies that the damage to the
plaintiffs as claimed had been caused by
the acts of the defendants in pumping
waters from the lake for irrigation pur-
poses; and that such damage, if any, to
the plaintiffs had been caused by a drouth
which existed for a period of time covered
by the bill of complaint; and that defend-
ants stated in their answer that the
defendants' groves had been purposely lo-
cated adjacent to the lake because of the
protection afforded thereby and for ir-
rigation purposes.
"In consideration of this case the Court
is of the opinion that where there are sev-
eral riparian owners owning property abut-
ting on a lake, one or more rarianown-
ers can not use watersrom t ke
such an excessive extent that it will like-
ly impair or estro lake r any of
the vested rights of others incjdental to
such riparian ownership; the Court has
been midul of these factors.
"The Court, after due consideration of
the plea s and proof as submitted in
said cause, finds that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove a case which would en-
title them to in unctive relie as prayed
for in the bill of comnlint. The Court
hsas based its findings on the following:


"That the defendant, Candace Strawn,
is a riparian owner having properties bor-
dering on Lake Hires and as such riparian
owner has the right to a reasonableshare
of the waters thereof for irrigation nur-
poses and spraying purposes, in common
with other riparian owners bordering there-
on, who have a similar right to a reason-
aBle share of the waters thereof.
"That it does not appear that the de-
fendants have used an unreasonable or
excessive amount of the waters of Lake
Hires for irrigation purposes but only an
amount icnt t for he needs of her citrus
grove adjacent to said lae.
"That it appears that a drouth existed
for the period covered by the bill of com-
plaint and that plaintiffs' citrus and agri-
cultural crops were affected thereby and
that such drought was general and also af-
fected citrus and crops other than the
plaintiffs' in the drouth area.
"That it does not appear that the damage
as complined of hv the nlainiffs isthe re-
suot Of the acts of the dfpnrlant n n p-
inm waters from Lake Hires for the nur-
pose of irrigation her citrus groves border-
ing thereon.
"That Lake Hires is of less area than
two square miles and therefore is not a-
fected by the provisions of Chapter 6956.
Acts of 1915, Laws of Florida (Compiled
General Laws of Florida, 1927, Section
1630).
"That at the time of the hearing iis
made to anpear that an inuntinn is neces-
sary as it appears from the testimony of
the witnesses that the water level of Lake
Hires is at its approximate normal level.
"It is therefore ordered, adjudged and
decreed that the- relief as prayed for in the
Bill of complaint be and the same is here-
by denied, and the bill of complaint is
hereby dismissed at the cost of the plain-
tiffs."
Upon due consideration of the entire rec-
ord it is not made to appear that the de-
cree is erroneous on the evidence under
the issues made in this case; it is there-
fore considered, ordered and adjudged that
the decree is affirmed.

BROWN, C. J., and WHITFIELD, BU-
FORD, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


196 Fla.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs