American Ry. Express Co. v. Weatherford

• Decision Date: 17 August 1922
• Citation: 93 So. 740,84 Fla. 264
• Parties: AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO. v. WEATHERFORD.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

93 So. 740

84 Fla. 264

AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO. v. WEATHERFORD.

Florida Supreme Court

August 17, 1922

Petition by the American Railway Express Company, a corporation against S.W. Weatherford for writ of certiorari to review a judgment against defendant petitioner in the circuit court.

Writ awarded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Entire record including bill of exceptions may be reviewed for want of jurisdiction or illegality of proceeding affected. The statute makes a bill of exceptions that is duly prepared authenticated, and filed a part of the record in a cause; and on certiorari the entire record, including that of any matters duly presented by the bill of exceptions, may be reviewed if they show want of jurisdiction or illegality in the proceeding affecting the judgment complained of, or if they show the court below did not proceed in the cause according to the essential requirements of the law, with a resulting substantial injury to the petitioner in certiorari.

Does not ordinarily extend to consideration of probative force of conflicting testimony. A review on certiorari may include substantial errors of procedure that were calculated to materially injure the complaining party; though it does not ordinarily extend to a consideration of the probative force of conflicting testimony, where there is ample, competent and legal evidence to sustain the judgment.

Court may consider whole record in interest of law and justice. In causes originating in the civil courts of record and referred to in section 3322, Revised General States 1920, where the probative force of the evidence affects the jurisdiction of the court, or where it is so manifestly contrary to the finding that is made on it as to show a palpable abuse of the power to determine the controverted facts on the evidence, or where the finding clearly indicates that the evidence was not duly considered or an erroneous rule of law was observed in making the finding, or where there was serious misconduct involved in the finding, and material injury to the petitioner resulted therefrom, the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, consider such matters and take appropriate action thereon in order that the law and justice may prevail.

Will issue in discretion of court on showing violation of established law or palpable miscarriage of justice. Generally stated, a writ of certiorari may, in the discretion of the court, be issued where it is duly made to appear, at least prima facie, that the record of a lower court shows that the proceedings in a cause have violated established principles of law, or that the adjudication in the cause is a palpable miscarriage of justice, and that the result is a substantial injury to the petitioner, who has no other remedy and seeks a writ of certiorari.

Where lower court has jurisdiction according to essential requirements of law, certiorari may be quashed. If on final hearing and consideration of the matters that may properly be determined under the writ of certiorari it appears that the proceedings in the lower court were within the jurisdiction of the court, and were according to the essential requirements of the law, or that no substantial injury reasonably could have resulted to the petitioner from the proceedings complained of, the writ of certiorari may be quashed.

Where prima facie showing that contributory negligence proximately caused injury and contributory negligence bars recovery certiorari may issue. Where it appears prima facie from the entire record presented in an application for certiorari that the plaintiff's negligence in a substantial manner contributed proximately to the injury for which damages were adjudged against the defendant in the civil court of record, and the judgment has been affirmed on appeal by the circuit court, and the case is one in which under the law contributory negligence bars recovery, the Supreme Court may in its discretion issue a writ of certiorari to have the entire record brought up for appropriate review.

COUNSEL

Kay, Adams & Ragland, of Jacksonville, for petitioner.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

A petition for a writ of certiorari has been presented, alleging, in effect, that in an action for damages in the civil court of record for Duval county a judgment was obtained against the petitioner, which judgment was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court, and that the courts did not proceed in the cause according to the essential requirements of law in designated particulars; the allegations of the petition being supported by exhibits showing copies of the record of the proceedings in the cause, including a bill of exceptions authenticated by the judge of the trial court.

Certiorari is a common-law writ which issues in the sound judicial discretion of the court to an inferior court, not to take the place of a writ of error or an appeal, but to cause the entire record of the inferior court to be brought up by certified copy for inspection, in order that the superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has not proceeded according to the essential requirements of the law, in cases where no direct appellate proceedings are provided by law. Seaboard Air Line R. v. Ray, 52 Fla. 634, 42 So. 714.

The statute makes a bill of exceptions that is duly prepared, authenticated, and filed a part of the record in a cause; and on certiorari the entire record, including that of any matters duly presented by the bill of exceptions, may be reviewed if they show want of jurisdiction or illegality in the proceedings affecting the judgment complained of, or if they show the court below did not proceed in the cause according to the essential requirements of the law with a resulting substantial injury to the petitioner in certiorari. Such a review may include substantial errors of procedure that were calculated to materially injure the complaining party, though it does not ordinarily extend to a consideration of the probative force of conflicting testimony, where there is ample, competent, and legal evidence to sustain the judgment. But in causes originating in the civil courts of record and referred to in section 3322, Revised General Statutes 1920, where the probative force of the evidence affects the jurisdiction of the court, or where it is so manifestly contrary to the finding that is made on it as to show a palpable abuse of the power to determine the controverted facts on the evidence, or where the finding clearly indicates that the evidence was not duly considered, or an erroneous rule of law was observed in making the finding, or where there was serious misconduct involved in the finding, and material injury resulted to the petitioner therefrom, the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, consider such matters and take appropriate action thereon in order that the law and justice may prevail. See Harrison v. Frink, 75 Fla. 22, 77 So. 663; First Nat. Bank of Gainesville v. Gibbs, 78 Fla. 118, 82 So. 618.

Generally stated, a writ of certiorari may, in the discretion of the court, be issued where it is duly made to appear, at least prima facie, that the record of a lower court shows that the proceedings in a cause have violated established principles of law, or that the...