Edwards v. Knight
| Decision Date | 12 January 1932 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. KNIGHT. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Dade County; W. L. Freeland, Judge.
Action by Daniel Robert Knight against L. E. Edwards, commenced in civil court. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the circuit court, and defendant brings certiorari.
Judgment of civil court of record quashed.
See also, 100 Fla. 1704, 132 So. 459.
Hudson & Cason, of Miami, for petitioner.
Evans & Vershon and Thos. McE. Johnston, all of Miami, for respondent.
This suit originated in the civil court of record of Dade county. Final judgment was entered against petitioner. L. E. Edwards and one William Thomas. Thereafter the case was taken by writ of error to the circuit court, where, on motion, there was an order of severance, leaving L. E. Edwards the sole plaintiff in error. The circuit court affirmed the judgment of the civil court of record. Thereafter, upon petition of Edwards a writ of certiorari was granted by this court, and the whole record is now before us.
The Supreme Court has power, on certiorari, to quash the proceedings of inferior tribunals when they proceed in a cause without jurisdiction, or where their procedure is not according to justice and law and there is no other means of review. First National Bank v. Gibbs, 78 Fla. 118, 82 So. 618.
A review on certiorari may include substantial error of procedure that was calculated to materially injure the complaining party. American Railway Express Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740.
In this case a majority of the court are of the opinion that the refusal of the judge of the civil court of record, under the circumstances of this case, to allow the filing of the amended plea tendered by the defendant, L. E. Edwards, was an abuse of discretion by the court, and that because of this the judge of the civil court of record did not proceed according to justice and the essential requirements of law in rendering final judgment against the petitioner Edwards.
Under our liberal statute of amendments, it is the duty of the court at all times to allow such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining in the existing suit the real question in controversy between the parties, if the amendments be duly applied for. Robinson v. Hartridge, 13 Fla. 501; South Florida R. Co. v. Weese, 32 Fla. 212, 13 So. 436.
While much must necessarily be left to the judicial discretion of the trial judge in permitting additional or new pleas to be filed by defendant after pleas already filed by him have been adjudged to be defective or insufficient, that discretion should be wisely exercised. Franklin Phosphate Co. v. International Harvester Co., 62 Fla. 185, 57 So. 206, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1247.
There is always danger that a discretion, however properly it may at first be exercised, will soon degenerate into mere caprice; an arbitrary sic volo sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas (as I wish it to be I will decree it; let my will stand in place of a rule). Therefore, when anything is left to judicial discretion, the law intends that it must be done with sound discretion and according to law. And, accordingly, courts exercising appellate jurisdiction, or authority to review judicial action by certiorari, have power to redress things that are otherwise done, notwithstanding they were left to the discretion of those that did them, when the jurisdiction of such courts has been properly invoked to grant a remedy to the injured party for an abuse of discretion which is shown likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, if not corrected.
When a judge perceives that, in consequence of the inadvertence of counsel or other cause, the rigid enforcement of the rules of practice would defeat the great object for which they are established, it is his duty so to relax them (when it can be done without injustice to any) as to make them subserve their true purpose, which is to aid the court and the parties before it in determining and adjudging their respective rights. Barber v. State, 5 Fla. 199, 204.
As was said in the previous opinion rendered in this cause ( Edwards v. Knight, 100 Fla. 1704, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. Campbell
...is whether or not the trial court acted contrary to the dictates of justice and the essential requirements of law. Edwards v. Knight, 1932,104 Fla. 16, 139 So. 582, 143 So. Plaintiff's decedent expired following a sterilization operation which was performed in the respondent-medical doctor'......
-
E.O. Painter Fertilizer Co. v. Foss
...the holding, in extreme cases, that such denial amounts to an illegal departure from the essential requirements of the law. Edwards v. Knight (Fla.) 139 So. 582, headnote. Scarcely any right of procedure is more important to suitors or more frequently called into exercise in actual practice......
- Edwards v. Knight
-
Bursten v. Cooper, 60-364
...CHAS., J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur. 1 Rule 4.2, subd. a, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.2 Edwards v. Knight, 104 Fla. 16, 139 So. 582, 143 So. ...