State v. Hutchins
Decision Date | 02 June 1931 |
Citation | 101 Fla. 773,135 So. 298 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. WASHBURN et al. v. HUTCHINS, County Judge, et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Decision.
Petition by the State, on the relation of F. B. Washburn and another for a writ of prohibition prayed to be directed to Victor Hutchins, County Judge and ex officio Judge of the County Court of Orange County, to prohibit further proceedings in the case of McKenney-Rylander, Inc., against the petitioners.
Demurrer to the petition overruled, and a peremptory writ of prohibition issued.
COUNSEL Dickinson & Dickinson, of Orlando, for petitioners.
Maguire & Voorhis, of Orlando, for respondents.
Petition for writ of prohibition filed in this court sets forth, in substance, that on August 27, 1929, McKenney-Rylander, Inc. filed its petition in the county court of Orange county Fla., as authorized by section 5400(3536), Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927, seeking to have F. B. Washburn and Metha K. Washburn removed from certain premises for default in payment of rent, after three days' notice in writing requiring the payment of such rent or the possession of the premises; that respondents F. B. Washburn and Metha K Washburn filed their plea in the court below denying that they owed McKenney-Rylander, Inc., any rental for the said premises and averring that their only relations with McKenney-Rylander, Inc., with reference to the property involved were contained in a contract entered into between the said Washburn and McKenney-Rylander, Inc., marked 'Exhibit A' and made a part of said plea, which, save as to testimonium and attestation clauses, signature, seal, and acknowledgment, is of the following tenor:
'Party of the first part agrees to remodel, equip and furnish the above mentioned store rooms in a neat, substantial and satisfactory manner, to be thoroughly equipped with such articles as are necessary for the proper operation of a tea room, it being understood that all fixtures and equipment remain the property of the party of the first part and such broken or damaged fixtures or equipment are to be replaced from time to time from the maintenance fund.
'It is mutually understood and agreed that party of the first part have the right to confer with parties of the second part at any time with regard to the operation of said tea room, though the general supervision and operating is to be entirely in charge of parties of the second part.
'It is mutually understood and agreed by the parties hereto that neither party shall have the right to sell their equity or interest under this contract to anyone without first offering the other party an option to purchase the other's interest, nor will either party have the right to sell their interest without first...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark
... ... 1924, appellees, Andrew Clark and Hilma Clark, his wife, who ... were nonresidents of the State of Florida, entered into a ... contract with the Home Seekers Realty Company, a Florida ... corporation, to purchase a lot in the 'Hollywood Beach ... particular case belongs. Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla ... 611, 112 So. 768; State v. Hutchins, 101 Fla. 773, ... 135 So. 298. Of course that potential appellate jurisdiction ... must be lawfully invoked. Lovett v. Lovett, supra; State ... ...
-
State, Dept. of Environmental Regulation v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., SS-439
...the majority opinion cites decisions establishing that this Court's action was very consequential indeed. State ex rel. Washburn v. Hutchins, 101 Fla. 773, 777, 135 So. 298, 299 (1931), characterized prohibition an extraordinary judicial writ that in proper cases may be issued to restrain t......
-
Kilgore v. Bird
... ... Do you know ... whether your son Chester W. Kilgore did marry without having ... obtained a divorce? ... [149 Fla. 575] 6 ... State what knowledge you have prior to your son's Chester ... W. Kilgore leaving Pinellas County, State of Florida, that he ... intended to remarry? ... 663, 138 ... So. 27; Joughin v. Parks, 107 Fla. 833, 143 So. 145, ... 306, 147 So. 273; State ex rel. Washburn v ... Hutchins, 101 Fla. 773, 135 So. 298; State ex rel ... Knott v. Willmer, 102 Fla. 64, 135 So. 859 ... 'As to the ... second question, we are of ... ...
-
Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Min. Co.
...jurisdiction, means the nature of the cause of action, and the relief sought.' 21 C.J.S. Courts § 35b (1940). State ex rel. Washburn v. Hutchins, 101 Fla. 773, 135 So. 298 (1931); State ex rel. Chiry v. Iowa Co-Operative Ass'n, 248 Iowa 167, 79 N.W.2d 775 (1956); King v. Menz, 75 N.W.2d 516......