Du Bose v. Meister
| Decision Date | 29 November 1926 |
| Citation | 110 So. 546,92 Fla. 995 |
| Parties | DU BOSE, County Judge, et al. v. MEISTER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; De Witt T. Gray, Judge.
Prohibition by Herman G. Meister against John W. Du Bose, County Judge in and for Duval County, and another. Order for the writ was entered, and defendants bring error.
Writ of error dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where review would obtain no practical result, writ of error will be dismissed; writ of error to review order prohibiting county court from hearing case to cancel license will be dismissed where license has expired. The writ of error will be dismissed where no practical result could be attained by reviewing the questions therein contained.
C. O. Andrews, of Orlando, for plaintiffs in error.
Edgar W. Waybright, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.
In this case complaint was filed before Hon. John W. Du Bose, as county judge of Duval County, against Herman G. Meister praying for an order that a license issued to the said Meister on the 21st day of October, 1925, as a real estate broker, be canceled upon grounds set forth in the complaint. The county judge assumed jurisdiction of the matter, and thereupon a suggestion praying a writ of prohibition was filed in the circuit court of Duval county, Fla., seeking to prohibit John W. Du Bose, as county judge, from exercising jurisdiction to try the complaint above referred to. On the 24th day of July, 1926, an order for writ of prohibition was made and entered by the circuit judge. From this order writ of error was sued out.
On November 9, 1926, the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that the question involved in the appeal is a moot question, and no practical result could be accomplished by reviewing the questions therein involved.
A decision by this court of the questions involved could be of no practical effect. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that the license, which was sought to be revoked expired on the 30th day of September, 1926. If this court following the law as construed and enunciated in the opinion in the case of Harry E. Prettyman, Inc., v. Fla. Real Estate Commission ex rel. (Fla.) 109 So. 442, should reverse the order of prohibition, it could avail nothing, because the license which is sought to be revoked by order of the county judge no longer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. State, 39453
...longer be made available and effective, it seems to me the better practice would dictate a dismissal of this case. See DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546 (1943); McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681 (1918); Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118 Although this Court has in t......
-
Wells v. Cochrane
... ... State ex rel. Richardson, 66 Fla. 336, ... 63 So. 452, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 1204; McCormick v. Bond, ... 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681; DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla ... 995, 110 So. 546 ... It is ... contended that this Court should pass upon the several [137 ... Fla. 244] questions ... ...
-
Lane v. State
... ... 153, 90 So. 696; ... Broward v. Bowden, 39 Fla. 751, 23 So. 489; ... Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118; DuBose ... v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546. See also 4 C.J.S., ... Appeal and Error, pages 1961-1963, § 1358 et seq., as to ... motions to dismiss ... ...
-
DeHoff v. Imeson
... ... attained by reviewing the questions therein contained ... BuBose, County Judge, et al. v. Meister, 92 Fla ... 995, 110 So. 546. Under such circumstances the appeal may be ... dismissed of the court's own motion. Barrs v. Peacock ... et al., 65 ... ...