Duggan v. Tomlinson, 33722
| Decision Date | 21 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 33722,33722 |
| Citation | 174 So.2d 393 |
| Parties | William E. DUGGAN, Petitioner, v. E. D. TOMLINSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Douglass & Steinmeyer, Edgar C. Booth, Tallahassee, and Barrow & Moore, Crestview, for petitioner.
Jones & Foerster, Jacksonville, for respondent.
The District Court of Appeal, First District, transmitted to us its certificate dated September 14, 1964, which recites that
'* * * having rendered its decision and filed its opinion in the above entitled cause * * * does hereby determine and certify that said decision is one which passes upon a question of great public interest as contemplated by Section 4(2), Article V, Constitution of Florida [F.S.A.]'
The opinion and decision of the District Court of Appeal in this case appears in 167 So.2d 2.
The provisions of Article V, Section 4(2), viz.: 'The Supreme Court may review by certiorari any decision of a district court of appeal * * * that passes upon a question certified by the district court of appeal to be of great public interest * * *' fills an interstice in our constitutional certiorari jurisdiction and is particularly applicable to decisions of the district courts of appeal of first impression, where no decisional conflict or other factor involving our certiorari jurisdiction is invoked. The constitutional provision just quoted limits our certiorari review in these instances to those decisions of such district courts which pass upon a question certified by such courts to be of great public interest. The certification process has been resorted to by the district courts of appeal in clear recognition of such constitutional limitation. While the ultimate decision of whether the decision does pass upon a question of great public interest is one which the Constitution vests exclusively in the district courts, it would be of great assistance to this Court in reviewing the case if, in such instances, the district court would clearly set forth in such certificate the question or questions which in its opinion is of such public interest as to bring the decision within the orbit of the constitutional provision.
In the instant certification the facts of the case gleaned from the opinion of the District Court of Appeal are as follows:
William E. Duggan is a resident of Crestview, Okaloosa County, Florida. He owned a tract of timber land in that county. E. D. Tomlinson, a licensed real estate broker who has his office and residence in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, learned through a friend, a Mr. Butler, that Mr. Duggan wished to sell his tract of timber land. Mr. Tomlinson went to Crestview where he saw Mr. Duggan. It was verbally agreed between them that Mr. Tomlinson would try to find a buyer for said tract. During this conversation it appears Mr. Duggan gave Mr. Tomlinson a description of the property and his asking price. Thereafter there were further conversations between them about the matter on different dates in Crestview. There was no written contract evidencing the agreement. The upshot was that Mr. Duggan sold the land to one Rasberry, whom Mr. Tomlinson had produced. The broker's commission not being paid, Mr. Tomlinson sued Mr. Duggan in the Circuit Court for Duval County. The action was in general assumpsit to recover money under an implied contract. In his complaint Mr. Tomlinson alleged:
'* * * said compensation or commission did become payable to plaintiff [Tomlinson] at his office in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida * * *.'
Mr. Tomlinson testified in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.C. v. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs.
...omitted). The number of cases involving en banc hearings (versus rehearings) is a small fraction of this number.3 Duggan v. Tomlinson , 174 So. 2d 393, 393–94 (Fla. 1965) (certification "is particularly applicable to decisions of the district courts of appeal of first impression, where no d......
-
Excel Ins. Co. v. Brown, 80-1123
...is expressly agreed upon, it is generally implied that payment is to be made in the county where the payee resides. Duggan v. Tomlinson, 174 So.2d 393 (Fla.1965); U.S.H. Properties Corp. v. Intercoastal Investments, Inc., 331 So.2d 385 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). The lower court determined that Brow......
-
State Dept. of Transp. v. San Marco Contracting Co.
...where the cause of action accrues. Sentry Indemnity Co. v. Angel & Son, Inc., 332 So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). See also Duggan v. Tomlinson, 174 So.2d 393 (Fla.1965), to the effect that an action on an implied contract for the payment of money may be maintained in the county of plaintiff's......
-
Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., 191
... ... 594, 6 So.2d 375; Williams v. Aeroland Oil Co., 1944, 155 Fla. 114, 20 So.2d 346; Duggan v. Tomlinson, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 2, affirmed, Fla., 174 So.2d 393; Ryder Leasing, Inc. v ... ...
-
Certifying questions to the Florida Supreme Court: what's so important?
...866 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1993). (16) See, e.g., Sunshine Meadows, 599 So. 2d at 1009 n.1 (Farmer, J., dissenting). (17) Duggan v. Tomlinson, 174 So. 2d 393, 393-94 (Fla. (18) See Caruana, 597 So. 2d at 811 (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting). (19) See Dumas v. State, 686 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 5th D.C.......