## Facts

- The United States battleship *Massachusetts* was used for target practice, then scuttled and sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in 1922 about 1.2 miles off the entrance to Pensacola Bay in Escambia County, within Florida territorial waters.
- Over time, wind and water action caused the wreck to settle deeper into the sandy bottom; parts of the structure (including portions of gun turrets) remained visible above the water.
- The vessel was in a condition that could not be restored to service as a ship.
- The wreck became a habitat for marine organisms and drew larger fish, making the site a long-standing and popular fishing location for local residents and visiting anglers.
- Individuals had removed smaller items (such as brass and fittings) from the wreck over the years, and earlier attempts to organize salvage operations had failed.
- The Massachusetts Company, a joint venture, sought to conduct a substantial salvage operation to remove the wreck for scrap and related materials, claiming authority derived from a federal contract concerning removal of the vessel.
- Acting through the Attorney General, the State of Florida filed suit in equity seeking to enjoin the salvage operation, arguing that removal would harm public fishing and related public interests tied to the wreck’s continued presence.
- The chancellor denied the requested injunctive relief and entered a decree for the Massachusetts Company, finding the State had not established a legal right that justified an injunction.
- The State appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida, acting through the Attorney General and relying on public interests in fishing and recreation, had a legally enforceable right to enjoin removal of the sunken *Massachusetts*.
2. Whether long public use of the wreck site as a fishing area, and the wreck’s function as fish habitat, created a property or trust interest sufficient to support an injunction.
3. Whether the Massachusetts Company’s claimed authority under a federal contract to remove the wreck defeated the State’s request for state-law equitable relief.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s final decree denying the State a permanent injunction.
- The court held that the State failed to show a clear legal right in the wreck or a legally recognized injury that equity would restrain, even if the wreck’s removal would reduce a favored fishing location.
- The court treated the Massachusetts Company’s federally derived authority to remove the vessel as a major factor against state interference based only on general public-welfare assertions.
- The court concluded that, absent a specific state property interest or statutory basis for prohibiting removal, the extraordinary remedy of injunction was not available.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctive relief requires proof of a clear legal right in the plaintiff and a threatened violation of that right; generalized public benefit or public preference is not enough.
- State authority over territorial waters and public resources does not, without more, create state ownership or a right to control a specific wrecked vessel resting on the seabed.
- Long-standing public use of a location for fishing, and ecological benefits from an artificial habitat, do not by themselves convert a privately or federally controlled chattel into state-held property or a state-protected fixture.
- A state court will not use equitable power to block removal of federal property where the defendant’s right to remove arises from federal authority, unless the State can point to a superior right recognized by law.

## Conclusion

*State ex rel. Ervin v. Massachusetts Co.* upheld denial of Florida’s attempt to stop salvage of the sunken USS *Massachusetts* on the ground that the State showed only a general public interest in keeping a productive fishing spot, not a specific legal right in the wreck or a statutory basis for restraint, and the salvage operation proceeded under federally derived authority that the State could not overcome with broad public-welfare claims.


State ex rel. Ervin v. Massachusetts Co., 95 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1957)