American Ry. Express Co. v. Weatherford

• Decision Date: 07 January 1924
• Citation: 86 Fla. 626,98 So. 820
• Parties: AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO. v. WEATHERFORD.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

98 So. 820

86 Fla. 626

AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO. v. WEATHERFORD.

Florida Supreme Court

January 7, 1924

En Banc.

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

Writ quashed.

See also, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Final appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts stated. The manifest purpose of the Constitution is to give to the circuit court 'final appellate jurisdiction,' by writ of error or appeal, of all causes originating in all courts of the state that are inferior to the circuit court, except convictions of felonies in the criminal courts of record, and except in probate and administration matters in the county judge's court.

Law as to authority of Supreme Court on writ of certiorari cannot enlarge its appellate jurisdiction beyond constitutional limits. The Supreme Court may issue writs of certiorari to appropriately review judgments of the civil court of record that have been affirmed by the circuit court, but the provision of section 3322, Revised General Statutes of 1920 that on a writ of certiorari the Supreme Court shall have 'the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court,' cannot extend or enlarge the 'appellate jurisdiction' of the Supreme Court as defined and limited by the Constitution.

Scope of review by Supreme Court on writ of certiorari stated. Under the provisions of section 3322, Revised General Statutes 1920 of Florida, the Supreme Court should, on writ of certiorari issued within the discretion of the court review and determine all matters that may properly be done on such writs as their appropriate scope and use have been or may be developed by the decisions of this court; the purpose being to determine in each case whether the judgment sought to be reviewed is illegal or is essentially irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to the party duly complaining.

Matters considered on application to Supreme Court for writ stated. In an application for a writ of certiorari to review the affirmance by the circuit court of a judgment of the civil court of record, the court examines the petition and exhibits, not for the purpose of finally determining the questions presented, but only so far as is necessary to ascertain whether the petition and exhibits show prima facie that a question is presented that may properly be reviewed on certiorari in such cases; the writ if issued being subject to be quashed if on full consideration the judgment complained of should not be quashed. The usual final order on certiorari is to quash the writ or to quash the judgment reviewed on the writ.

Writ quashed when judgment below correct. Where upon full consideration it appears by the certified transcript of the record brought to the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari that the judgment rendered by the civil court of record, and affirmed by the circuit court, is in compliance with the essential requirements of the law, the writ of certiorari will be quashed.

COUNSEL

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

Milam & Milam, of Jacksonville, for respondent.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, J.

In the civil court of record for Duval county, Weatherford brought an action in tort to recover damages for personal injuries and for injuries to plaintiff's motor vehicle with side car, alleged to have been caused by a collision with defendant's animal drawn delivery truck on Bay street in the city of Jacksonville, Fla.

The amended declaration in three counts alleges:

That the defendant, 'by its agent or servant, carelessly or negligently operated an animal drawn delivery truck, the property of the defendant, on the wrong side of the street, that is to say, on the defendant's left-hand side, as a result of which careless and negligent operation, and while plaintiff was slowly and carefully driving his motorcycle with side car near his right-hand curb and traveling east, (1) the defendant's said vehicle approaching from the east was carelessly and negligently driven upon and against the plaintiff and his motorcycle with side car, greatly damaging said motorcycle and side car, and painfully and grievously injuring the plaintiff. (2) The defendant's said vehicle approached from the opposite direction and suddenly swerved to the opposite side of the street, that is, to the south side of said Bay street, which was defendant's left and plaintiff's right. That the said operation and handling of the said defendant's delivery truck was carelessly and negligently done in the manner aforesaid, and that as a result of such careless and negligent driving, said vehicles and animals were driven upon and against the plaintiff on his motorcycle with side car, greatly damaging said motorcycle and side car, and painfully and grievously injuring the plaintiff. (3) The defendant so carelessly and negligently drove an animal drawn delivery truck on Bay street, a public street in Jacksonville, Fla., near its intersection with Stewart street, in that the same was driven and operated on the wrong side of the street and at an excessive speed, that its vehicles and animals collided and struck a certain motorcycle with side car, the property of the plaintiff, being driven by the plaintiff, thereby greatly damaging said motorcycle and side car, and painfully and grievously injuring the plaintiff.'

The defendant pleaded the general issue and contributory negligence. At the trial verdict and judgment for $500 were rendered for the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the circuit court under the statute, and the following judgment of affirmance was rendered:

'This cause is heard upon appeal from the judgment of the civil court of record of Duval county. The record is voluminous, and the case vigorously contested on both sides; but what seems to me to be the controlling factor stands out clearly. The appellant's agent was driving a loaded, horse-drawn truck westward on Bay street near the Union Terminal Station. The northerly side of the street was temporarily obstructed by a standing street car and some parked automobiles. Under these conditions the driver elected to pass the street car to the left, rather than turn back or wait for the congestion to clear up. Under prevailing conditions this act on his part was highly dangerous to people traveling easterly in due course. He took a negligent chance and collided with the plaintiff to the latter's injury. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.'

On application to this court for a writ of certiorari to review the record of the judgment it was said:

'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.'

And that----

'If on final hearing and consideration of the matters that may properly be determined under writ of certiorari it appears that the proceeding 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.' American Railway Express Company v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740.

A writ of certiorari was issued by this court.

The respondent moved to quash the writ of certiorari upon grounds that section 3322, Revised General Statutes 1920, in so far as it provides in substance that the writ of certiorari shall have the effect of a writ of error is unconstitutional, and that the matters complained of are not cognizable by this court on writ of certiorari, and if so cognizable, they are not material or harmful errors.

The petitioner prays that the judgment be quashed or reversed, or that other appropriate relief be granted.

Section 3322, Revised General Statutes 1920, is as follows:

'Where the circuit court has rendered a judgment in any case appealed from the civilcourt of record as provided by this title, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court to require, by certiorari or otherwise, upon petition of any party thereto, any such case to be certified to the Supreme Court for its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if it has been carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court: Provided, that such petition must be filed within thirty days after the rendering of such judgment by the circuit court.'

Section 5, art. 5, of the Constitution of Florida, contains the following:

'The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases at law and in equity originating in circuit courts, and of appeals from the circuit courts in cases arising before judges of the county courts in matters pertaining to their probate jurisdiction and in the management of the estates of infants, and in cases of conviction of felony in the criminal courts, and in all criminal cases originating in the circuit courts. The court shall have the power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, habeas...