# Robb v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · January 8, 1960 · 117 So. 2d 534

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4771394

## Case

- **Full name:** W. Orm ROBB, Trustee for the Lakeland Improvement Company, a dissolved Florida Corporation v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a foreign corporation existing under the laws of the State of Virginia
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** January 8, 1960
- **Citations:** 117 So. 2d 534
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Kanner, Shannon, Spoto
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4771394

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a deed conveyed fee simple when it contained a clause mandating the railroad permanently maintain a railway station and did not contain a provision “for reverter or termination of grantee’s estate or title”

## Opinion text

On Petition for Rehearing and Clarification of Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This court in its opinion noted that damages were not alleged in the complaint nor sought in the prayer and, further, that it was agreed that the depot was still being maintained by the defendant railroad company. We concluded that “upon careful consideration of the allegations of the complaint, the relief sought thereunder, together with the record before the court on summary proceeding, we are convinced that the decree entered as applied to the record and the relief sought” was free from error.
This court’s affirmance of the lower court was concerned only with the allegations of the complaint and the relief sought and did not go beyond this. The proof related only to this phase. It was not intended that the affirmance be construed as res judicata upon any claim for damages under plaintiff’s exhibit B, should such occasion arise, or whether there is a right to a claim for damages. As indicated, there is no basis in the record for determination of that question.
Upon this clarification, rehearing is denied.
KANNER, Acting Chief Judge, and SHANNON, J., and SPOTO, I. C., A. J., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4771394. Public record. Not legal advice.