Canal Ins. Co. of Greenville, S. C. v. Sturgis, B-155

• Decision Date: 17 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. B-155,B-155
• Citation: 115 So.2d 774
• Parties: CANAL INSURANCE CO. OF GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, a corporation, Appellant, v. Hezekiah STURGIS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 774

115 So.2d 774

CANAL INSURANCE CO. OF GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, a corporation, Appellant, v. Hezekiah STURGIS, Appellee.

No. B-155.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Nov. 17, 1959.

Boyd, Jenerette & Leemis, Jacksonville, and Cobb. Cole & Pierce, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Wesley A. Fink, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellee's suggestion that the decision herein be certified to the Supreme Court of Florida as one that passes on a question of great public interest within the purview of Section 4(2), Article V. Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., this court does hereby find that the decision in this cause passes upon a question of great public interest and does hereby certify the same to the Supreme Court of Florida.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.

STURGIS, J., dissents.

STURGIS, Judge (dissenting)

Inherent in the certification of this court's decision to the Supreme Court under the provisions of Section 4(2), Article V. Constitution of Florida, is the proposition that it 'passes upon a question of great public interest.' That determination of the majority is conclusive in point of law, and I only question it in point of fact.

The word 'great' as used in the cited constitutional provision should be narrowly construed to the end that only matters of a highly urgent character--those upon which the immediate welfare of the public in a grave as well as substantial measure depends--should be clothed with the aura of the constitutional certificate. For unless such concept is closely adhered to it is certain, as pithily expressed by Mr. Justice Thomas speaking for the Supreme Court in Lake v. Lake, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 639, 642, that the District Courts of Appeal will become 'way stations on the road to the Supreme Court.' In that landmark case our Supreme Court further said:

'It seems trite to remark that everyone concerned wishes to see justice done. It can be stated without hesitancy, qualification, or reservation, that every man is entitled to his day in court. He is vouchsafed a fair trial and he is secured a fair hearing on an appeal which he may take as a matter of right. But he is not entitled to two appeals.

'The quality of justice may not be gauged by the treatment accorded one litigant without regard for his adversary. Justice should be done, but not overdone. When a party wins in the trial court he must be prepared to face his opponent in the appellate court, but if he succeeds there, he should not be compelled the second time to undergo the expense and delay of another review.'

As I analyze the certified decision, it involves nothing more than a run-of-the-mill problem such as appellate courts are called on to handle day in and day out. The unanimous conclusion reached therein rests upon the elemental proposition that an unambiguous written contract will be given the commonly accepted meaning of the language employed and...