Hundley v. State

• Citation: 36 So. 362,47 Fla. 172
• Parties: HUNDLEY et al. v. STATE ex rel. MILTON.
• Decision Date: 15 March 1904
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

36 So. 362

47 Fla. 172

HUNDLEY et al. v. STATE ex rel. MILTON.

Florida Supreme Court

March 15, 1904

In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Lucius J Reeves, Judge.

Application by the state, on the relation of John Milton, administrator of Mary C. McKinne, for a writ of prohibition to Victoria J Hundley and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. A county judge is not disqualified to pass upon a contest over an annual accounting of an administrator by reason of the fact that the father of said judge is the attorney for the contestants, who claim to be heirs at law of the decedent and the compensation of the father is to be a percentage of all money or things of value which he may obtain for his clients from the administrator in the settlement of the estate, including a percentage of the proceeds and real estate which may descend to or be vested in them as such alleged heirs.

COUNSEL D. L. McKinnon, for plaintiffs in error.

OPINION

COCKRELL J.

A suggestion for a writ of prohibition was presented to the circuit court for Jackson county, alleging that J. C McKinnon, the county judge of said county, was disqualified to pass upon a contest upon the allowance of certain credits claimed by John Milton, Jr., as administrator of Mary C. McKinne, deceased, in his annual account. The contest was filed by the abovenamed plaintiffs in error, other than the said J. C. McKinnon, claiming to be heirs at law of the said Mary C. McKinne, deceased. The ground of the alleged disqualification is stated to be that one D. L. McKinnon, father of the said J. C. McKinnon, represented some of the said contestants, as attorney at law, under an agreement with them whereby the said D. L. McKinnon is to be compensated only by being paid a percentage 'of all moneys or things of value which he may obtain for or on behalf of each of said persons represented by him, from your petitioner, in a settlement of the estate of the said Mary E. McKinne,' including a percentage of the proceeds and real estate which may descend to or be vested in said persons as such alleged heirs. A demurrer to the suggestion for the writ of prohibition was overruled, and the writ issued as prayed.

This case involves the construction of section 967, Rev. St. 1892 which reads as follows: 'No judge of any court shall sit or preside in any cause to which he is a party or in which he is interested, or in which he would be excluded from being a juror by reason of interest, consanguinity or affinity to either of the parties; nor shall he entertain any motion in the cause other than to have the same tried by a...