Cobb v. State ex rel. Pitchford
| Decision Date | 16 September 1941 |
| Citation | 3 So.2d 855,148 Fla. 149 |
| Parties | COBB et al. v. STATE ex rel. PITCHFORD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1941.
Carroll Dunscombe, of Stuart, for plaintiffs in error.
B. K Roberts and Rodney L. Durrance, both of Tallahassee, and E S. Willes, of Fort Pierce, for defendant in error.
On August 26, 1940 a suggestion for writ of prohibition was presented to the Honorable Alto Adams, then Circuit Judge in and for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, alleging under oath, among other things, that by an executive order, dated April 24, 1940 Honorable Flem C. Dame, Judge of the County Court of St Lucie County, Florida, had been designated and appointed by the Governor of Florida to proceed to Stuart in Martin County, Florida on May 14, 1940, and there remain as long thereafter as was necessary to conduct the trial of a civil case then pending in the County Court of Martin County, Florida, wherein Harry Segerstrom was plaintiff and J. J. Pitchford was defendant; that Judge Dame as such judge did, pursuant to said executive order, assume jurisdiction of said cause, and on the oral motion of the defendant in open court continued the same upon the ground that the cause had not been properly placed upon the trial docket for trial; that on July 9, 1940, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Martin County received what purported to be an order revoking the executive order dated April 24, 1940, by which Judge Dame was assigned to try the case, and on the dame date received also what purported to be another executive order appointing Otis M. Cobb, Judge of the County Court of Indian River County, to conduct the trial; that, pursuant to such purported order Judge Cobb proceeded on July 10, 1940, to Stuart, in Martin County, and attempted to assume jurisdiction over the protest of Pitchford, defendant in the civil case, and announced he would set the case before him for trial at Stuart on August 27th.
The suggestion also clearly alleged the two purported executive orders, by which it was sought on the one hand to revoke the previous executive order assigning Judge Dame to try the case, and, on the other, to substitute Judge Cobb, were not signed by the Governor and were unauthorized and void; that Judge Dame, as judge pro hac vice, after assuming jurisdiction was recognized by both parties in the case as judge de facto; that he did not disqualify himself as judge pro hac vice in said cause, and that 'no proceedings whatsoever under the law have been had, done or taken whereby he is disqualified to hear, try and determine, or otherwise act as judge pro hac vice therein.'
It was further averred that the Honorable Otis M. Cobb was seeking to assume jurisdiction of said cause, and unless prohibited therefrom would unlawfully assume jurisdiction and hear, try and determine the case, although he was without lawful authority in the premises.
Upon presentation of the suggestion, the Circuit Judge granted an alternative writ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Gerstein v. Baker
...the writ of prohibition was proper, based on our determination that the suggestion stated a prima facie case. Cobb v. State ex rel. Pitchford, 148 Fla. 149, 3 So.2d 855; State ex rel. Ginsberg v. Wiseheart, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 810; State ex rel. Gillham v. Phillips, Fla.App.1966, 193 So......
-
State ex rel. Gillham v. Phillips, 7352
...General. The correct procedure in such aspect of the case was pointed up by the Supreme Court of Florida in Cobb v. State ex rel. Pitchford, 1941, 148 Fla. 149, 3 So.2d 855, in which case it was held that '(w)here no return, answer or other pleading was interposed by defendants in a prohibi......
-
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, In re
...See Sapp v. McConnon & Co., 124 Fla. 879, 169 So. 622, and Storrs v. Storrs, 126 Fla. 213, 170 So. 728, cited in Cobb v. State ex rel. Pitchford, 148 Fla. 149, 3 So.2d 855. 'It is noted that Section 38.09 requires 'every' judge to mail a copy of the order of disqualification to the governor......
-
Adams v. State ex rel. Eagan, 85-1637
...See Chapman v. State, 152 Fla. 183, 11 So.2d 335 (1943); Harrison v. Murphy, 132 Fla. 579, 181 So. 386 (1938). See also Cobb v. State, 148 Fla. 149, 3 So.2d 855 (1941); State v. Knight, 138 Fla. 374, 189 So. 425 (1939); Pettie v. Kronberg, 300 So.2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). But under authori......