King v. L & L Investors, Inc., 61-30
Citation | 136 So.2d 671 |
Decision Date | 29 January 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 61-30,61-30 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Parties | Lillian S. KING and Isabelle S. Blue, Appellants, v. L & L INVESTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
Paul A. Louis, Bertha Ciaire Lee and N. J. Durant, Miami, for appellants.
Glasel, Meyer & Leben Hollywood, and Joseph Pardo, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
In King v. L & L Investors, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 744, we reversed a final decree of foreclosure and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a summary final decree for the defendants dismissing the complaint. A petition for rehearing, petition for modification and/or clarification of opinion, and a motion to supplement the record by adding certain new evidence, all filed by the appellee, were denied, and the mandate of this court issued and was filed in the circuit court on November 15, 1961.
On January 4, 1962, on motion of the appellants, who were the defendants below, the chancellor entered an order on the mandate, setting aside the foreclosure decree and the sale made thereunder, dismissing the complaint and directing that possession be restored to defendants. More than 15 days after the filing of the mandate, and without having sought permission of the appellate court, the appellee-plaintiff through new counsel filed a motion in the trial court suggesting that appellants had made false representations to the district court of appeal, and moving the trial court to set aside the order on the mandate and, in effect, reject the judgment of the appellate court for that reason. The plaintiff also moved the trial court to stay proceedings on the mandate pending a proposed petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court from the decision of this court. The chancellor granted the motion for stay, fixed a supersedeas bond of $1,000, and, proceeding on the motion to set aside this court's decision for supposed fraud on the appellate court, ordered the defendant-appellants to appear before him on a named day to be questioned regarding the matters in the plaintiff's said motion.
The cause is now before us on appellants' petition for prohibition and for a writ to carry into effect the mandate.
In the case of State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 265, the Supreme Court dealt with a similar situation and granted prohibition. In that case the Supreme Court had reversed the trial court and directed it to enter a decree for specific performance of a contract. A petition for rehearing and a motion to file a bill of review in the lower court were filed in the Supreme Court and denied, after which the mandate of the court was issued and filed in the trial court. Thereafter the trial court granted the appellee's motion to proceed there to review the cause by a bill of review. As a preface to granting prohibition the Supreme Court said (97 So.2d at 266):
In State ex rel. Gibbs, v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699, 700, the Supreme Court said:
'The law is settled in this State that when a cause has been appealed and judgment rendered by the Appellate Court, interference therewith on the part of the lower Court by any proceeding other than such as is directed by the Appellate Court will be prohibited. * * *'
In Petition of Vermeulen, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 318, 320, the district court of appeal in the first district, speaking through Chief Judge Wigginton, said:
In the present case the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the questioned orders. When this court had rendered its opinion and judgment and issued its mandate with directions to the trial court to enter a decree for the defendants and dismiss the complaint, the chancellor was without discretion to do otherwise, and was vested only with power to enter such decree in accordance with the requirements of the mandate.
The matter set forth in plaintiff's motion to the trial court which was the basis for the order to defendants to appear for proceedings aimed at setting aside the judgment of the appellate court, had been presented to this court in a motion with the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abdo v. Abdo
...Stat. (2020) ; State ex rel. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Nathan, 253 So. 2d 265, 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) ; King v. L & L Investors, Inc., 136 So. 2d 671, 672-74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) ; cf. State ex rel. Paluska v. White, 162 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (noting that prohibition would li......
-
State ex rel. Paluska v. White, 4769
...Whitney, 1913, 66 Fla. 24, 63 So. 299 and State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 1898, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160. See also, King v. L & L Investors, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 671; State ex rel. Stewart v. Circuit Court, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 424; State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation v. Kn......
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. Holloway Materials Corp.
...place into effect the order and judgment of this Court. * * *' Accord, Berger v. Leposky, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 628; King v. L & L Investors, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 671; Petition of Vermeulen, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d Furthermore, it is well settled that once the appellate court's judgm......
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So.2d 571 (Fla.1972); King v. L & L Investors, Inc., 136 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Fla.R.Civ.P. For these reasons, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant ......