Jacksonville, T. & K.w. Ry. Co. v. Boy

• Decision Date: 17 October 1894
• Citation: 16 So. 290,34 Fla. 389
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: JACKSONVILLE, T. & K. W. RY. CO. v. BOY.

16 So. 290

34 Fla. 389

JACKSONVILLE, T. & K. W. RY. CO. v. BOY.

Florida Supreme Court

October 17, 1894

Certiorari to circuit court, Putnam county; J. J. Finley, Judge.

Certiorari by Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company to review a judgment of the circuit court of Putnam county affirming a judgment of the county judge of said county against the petitioner. Judgment of affirmance quashed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. The supreme court has power to review and quash, on the common-law writ of certiorari, the proceedings of inferior tribunals, when they proceed in a cause without jurisdiction or when their procedure is essentially irregular, and not according to the essential requirements of law, and no appeal or direct method of reviewing the proceedings exists.

2. The writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of an inferior court does not issue as a matter of right, but rests in the sound discretion of the court; and, when issued, will not serve the purpose of a writ of error, or appeal with a bill of exceptions.

3. The office of the common-law writ of certiorari, when issued to review the proceedings of an inferior court, is to bring up for inspection the entire record of the proceedings of such court, in order that the superior court may determine therefrom whether the inferior court acted within its jurisdictional powers, or whether its procedure was essentially regular, and in accordance with the requirements of law.

4. The judgment of a court must appear upon its record, and without the proper record evidence of the entry of a judgment appealed from the appellate court cannot either affirm or reverse what has been done in the lower court. To proceed on an appeal transcript to affirm a judgment of which there was no record evidence before the court, would be an essential irregularity, and not according to the requirements of law.

5. B sued a railroad company in the court of a county judge, and obtained a verdict for $100, value of cow killed, with interest and attorney fees, amounting to $80.30. Motion for new trial was overruled, and an appeal entered by the company to the circuit court, and there was certified to that court a transcript of the record of the proceedings before the county judge, with a bill of exceptions, but the record did not show any entry of judgment on the verdict. The circuit court, in April, 1890, entered a judgment on the appeal affirming the judgment of the county judge. Held, on writ of certiorari to the circuit court, that the judgment entered by it was essentially irregular, and not in accordance with the requirements of law, and should be quashed.

COUNSEL J. R. Parrott and T. M. Day, Jr., for petitioner.

Geo. P Fowler, for respondent.

OPINION

MABRY J.

On the petition of the Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company, filed in this court in May, 1890, a writ of certiorari was issued to the circuit court for the Fifth judicial circuit for Putnam county, commanding the clerk of that court to transmit to this court a true copy of the record in the case wherein the said company was appellant and Antone Boy was appellee, and in which judgment was rendered affirming the judgment of the court of the county judge of the said county of Putnam. From the record filed as a return to the writ by the clerk of the circuit court it is made to appear that a suit was instituted by the respondent, Boy, before the county judge of Putnam county against the Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company to recover $100, the value of a cow of respondent alleged to have been negligently killed by the company.

The declaration filed in the case alleged the value of the cow to be $100, and that plaintiff's claim for recovery arose under chapter 3742, Laws 1887. A trial of the case in the court of the county judge resulted in a verdict by a jury in favor of plaintiff (respondent here) for $100, for the value of the cow killed, with interest from the date of the presentation of the claim for payment at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum, and $70 attorney fees. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and after the expiration of the term of court at which the verdict was rendered an appeal was entered by the company, as it is recited, from the judgment therein rendered to the circuit court, and in pursuance of an order for that purpose a bill of exceptions was signed by the county judge, and a transcript of the record in the cause was certified to the circuit court. The following judgment was rendered April 4, 1890, by the circuit court on the appeal, viz.: 'This cause came on to be heard upon the record in appeal of Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company, from the judgment rendered in the court of the county judge for Putnam county, and was argued by counsel for the respective parties, and the court having considered the same, and being advised in the premises, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court below be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. It is further ordered that the clerk of this court do certify the same to the judge presiding in the court below.' No county court having been established for Putnam county, the county judge of that county had original jurisdiction in all cases at law in which the demand or value of the property involved did not exceed $100, and the circuit court had final appellate jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising before the county judge. Const. 1885, art. 5, §§ 11, 17. The declaration in the case before the county judge claimed $100 damages, under chapter 3742, Laws 1887, and the verdict rendered was for that sum as the value of the cow killed, 20 per cent, interest per annum for a period of time sufficient to increase the amount to over $100, and also $70 attorney fees.

It is contended for petitioner that the county judge proceeded illegally in allowing attorney fees, and also exceeded his jurisdiction in entering judgment for more than $100; and further, that the action of the circuit court in affirming the judgment of the county judge was illegal, and beyond its jurisdictional powers. Our decision under the present writ must affect the proceedings before the circuit court, as the writ was directed to that court, and not to the county judge. But as the proceedings in the circuit court were on appeal from proceedings before the county judge, the transcript of the record of such proceedings filed in the circuit court must be examined in order to determine the legality of the action of the latter court therein. The power of this court to review and quash, on the common-law writ of certiorari the proceedings of an inferior tribunal, when it proceeds in a cause without jurisdiction, or when its procedure is illegal, or is unknown to the law, or is essentially irregular, is, we think, clear; but, while such power does exist, it must be remembered that its...