Adams v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 18 February 1941 |
| Parties | ADAMS et ux. v. LEWIS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 27, 1941.
Original proceeding by W. H. Adams and wife against Miles W. Lewis and others for a writ of prohibition.
Respondents' demurrer to the suggestion for a writ of prohibition sustained.
COUNSEL Lee Guest and O. O. McCollum, both of Jacksonville, for relators.
Smith & Axtell, Edgar W. Waybright, Jr., and Thelma H. Waybright, all of Jacksonville, for respondents.
This cause is before us on a demurrer to a suggestion, presented by the relators, for a writ of prohibition to be directed to the circuit judge, the commissioner appointed by him, and a certain judgment creditor. The rule nisi issued commanding the respondents to show cause why the writ of prohibition should not issue and on the return day the suggestion for the writ was attacked upon the ground, among others, that a writ of prohibition was not a proper remedy in the circumstances reflected in the record.
According to the petition filed in this court, a judgment had been obtained against a corporation and subsequently the attorney for the holder obtained an order from the circuit judge appointing a commissioner, before whom the judgment debtor could be examined about property upon which a levy could be made to satisfy the claim. In the course of the inquest, an effort was made to prove that the corporation was the alter ego of one of the relators, and the court upon the recommendation of the commissioner made a preliminary order that certain property in the hands of persons, not parties to the original suit, be subjected to the judgment and that they be impleaded and required to show cause why such adjudication should not be made final.
In the petition which was the basis for the rule nisi, there was complaint of the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the court's fuling and about the commissioner's decision that the impleaded parties should pay the cost of taking and transcribing the testimony offered by them to defeat the efforts of the creditor to levy on property held by them to pay the judgment debt. Further criticism was made of the order of the circuit judge sustaining this position of the commissioner that these relators bear the expense of the transcript of their testimony and directing that, upon their failure to comply, the report be filed containing only the evidence adduced by the judgment creditor.
It was charged that in entering all orders subsequent to the one creating the commission the circuit judge and commissioner respectively exceeded their jurisdiction, and that the effect was to transcend the scope of such supplementary proceedings under Chapter 7842, Laws of Florida 1919.
The relators insisted, too, that this excessive jurisdiction violated their fundamental rights because the commissioner will render a report based on the testimony of only the judgment creditor; will make a report based on the testimony not reduced to writing; and the circuit judge will order the original execution levied against the property of the impleaded parties who were not involved in the litigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Losey v. Willard
...of its jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. State ex rel. Jennings v. Frederick, 137 Fla. 773, 189 So. 1; Adams v. Lewis, 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852; White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So.2d 580; State ex rel. Johnson v. Anderson, Fla., 1948, 37 So.2d 910; Harr......
-
Lorenzo v. Murphy
...or was about to exceed his jurisdiction.' In the case of Adams et ux. v. Lewis et al., decided February 18, 1941, as reported in 146 Fla. 177, 220 So. 852, 853, this speaking through Mr. Justice Elwyn Thomas, said: '* * * proceedings in prohibition should be restricted to the field for whic......
-
White v. State ex rel. Johnson
...Fla. 639, 32 So.2d 421, 423. And also: 'In the case of Adams et ux. v. Lewis et al., decided February 18, 1941, as reported in 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852, 853, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Elwyn Thomas, said: '* * * proceedings in prohibition should be restricted to the field for......
-
State ex rel. Reynolds Const. Co. v. Hendry
...Fla. 639, 32 So.2d 421, 423. And also: 'In the case of Adams et ux. v. Lewis et al., decided February 18, 1941, as reported in 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852, 853, this speaking through Mr. Justice Elwyn Thomas, said: '* * * proceedings in prohibition should be restricted to the field for which ......