Florida Memory is administered by the Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services, Bureau of Archives and Records Management. The digitized records on Florida Memory come from the collections of the State Archives of Florida and the special collections of the State Library of Florida.
State Archives of Florida
- ArchivesFlorida.com
- State Archives Online Catalog
- ArchivesFlorida.com
- ArchivesFlorida.com
State Library of Florida
Related Sites
Description of previous item
Description of next item
Lower Court
Date
Box
Folder
Transcript
Pleas at the Court House in the City of Tallahassee, before the Honorable Thomas Baltzell Judge of the Middle Circuit of the State of Florida, sitting in and for the County of Leon in the said Circuit on Thursday the twenty ninth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty eight, to wit:
Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit, on the 14[th] day of December A.D 1848 came one Justus R. Fortune by his Attorney and filed his Declaration the the words and figures following, to wit:
Middle Circuit of Florida
In Leon Circuit Court
To Fall Term, 1848.
Leon County SS. Justus R. Fortune plaintiff complains of the City of Tallahassee defendant re of a plea of trespass on the case.
For that whereas on the third day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty eight at the County aforesaid there was and for a long time had been and still is a certain street within the corporate Circuit of the City of Tallahassee called and known as street, which said street was and still is a common highway for all the good citizens of the State of Florida and their horses and cattle to go upon pass and
Title
Subject
Description
Justus R. Fortune was a resident of Tallahassee. According to documents in the case file, he operated a tin shop along a city-maintained road and owned at least one horse. On October 3, 1848, Fortune lent his horse to George W. Hutchins, who borrowed the animal for an unspecified purpose.
When Hutchins finished his business and returned the horse, he hitched it to a post near Fortune's tin shop in the customary fashion. At some point, the horse broke loose from the hitching post and escaped. A thorough search of the surrounding area failed to recover the animal.
The next day, Fortune discovered the horse, badly injured, at the bottom of a ditch or chasm that crossed the city road adjacent to his tin shop. The horse later died. He blamed the City of Tallahassee for failing to maintain the regularly-traveled public thoroughfare, as evidenced by the "nuisance" ditch, which had resulted in the death of his horse. Fortune sought to recover $125 from the city as compensation for his loss.
Fortune's case against the city rested on language contained within Tallahassee's Act of Incorporation. According to the Act, the city had the power and the responsibility to "prevent and remove nuisances" within its corporate limits. In this case, the section of road in question existed firmly within city limits, and therefore, Tallahassee officials had the responsibility to provide for its maintenance.
Fortune's legal representation cited various U.S. court cases and English Common Law as precedent for upholding the principal that the City of Tallahassee bore responsibility for maintaining the road and answering for accidents such as that which befell Fortune's horse. The court agreed: "that the City of Tallahassee was guilty of a nonfeasance in permitting the nuisance mentioned to remain."
The only brief point of contention in this case arose with the question of whether Fortune had taken all necessary and deliberate care to protect his property. Could he be to blame for not better securing his horse? Whether Hutchins could be charged with negligence did not become an issue.
The court found that: "if a person should go headlong with his beast upon a nuisance, which (with ordinary care) he might have avoided, he ought not to have damages for his loss in consequence of his own recklessness." The court determined that citizens daily hitched their horses and other animals throughout the town along public roads. Sometimes these animals escaped. But, these escapes were certainly accidental occurrences, instead of widespread negligence.
This case established important precedent in Florida law, following decisions made by courts in other states. Overtime, the responsibility(and liability) of incorporated settlements to maintain public property within their boundaries extended far beyond roads to include all types of infrastructure, and even persons employed by cities and towns on official business. Cases like Fortune form the legal basis for the rights of citizens to make cities and towns responsible for maintaining public works and other manifestations of taxpayer-funded infrastructure within corporate limits.
Creator
Source
Date
Format
Language
Type
Identifier
Folder
Box
Lower Court
Total Images
Image Path
Image Path - Large
Transcript Path
Thumbnail
Chicago Manual of Style
Florida Supreme Court. Justus R. Fortune v. City of Tallahassee. 1849. State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory. <https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/260676>, accessed 14 November 2024.
MLA
Florida Supreme Court. Justus R. Fortune v. City of Tallahassee. 1849. State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory. Accessed 14 Nov. 2024.<https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/260676>
AP Style Photo Citation
(State Archives of Florida/Florida Supreme Court)