Mcnally v. State Ex Rel. Bond Realization Corporation
| Citation | 157 So. 430,117 Fla. 33 |
| Parties | McNALLY, Mayor, et al. v. STATE ex rel. BOND REALIZATION CORPORATION. |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1934 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1934.
Error to Circuit Court, Putnam County; George Wm. Jackson, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the State of Florida, on the relation of the Bond Realization Corporation, against Walter McNally, as Mayor and member of the City Commission of Palatka, and others. To review the judgment for relator, respondents bring error.
Affirmed on motion to quash proceedings in error.
COUNSEL J. V. Walton, of Palatka, for plaintiffs in error.
Claude L. Gray, of Orlando, for defendant in error.
Where the law of the case is settled on a former review and a judgment is thereafter rendered by the trial court purporting to follow the judgment and mandate of the Supreme Court, and a second writ of error is sued out to review the judgment of the circuit court entered by it in its effort to conform with the Supreme Court's mandate, Supreme Court will, upon consideration of defendant in error's motion to quash the proceedings in error made under section 4639, C. G. L section 2920, R. G. S.; section 4965, C. G. L., section 3173 R. G. S., affirm the judgment where, upon a consideration of the motions to quash, it has been necessary to make an examination of the transcript of the record and it appears therefrom that the second judgment as last appealed from conforms to the Supreme Court's mandate. City of South Miami v. Du Bois Const. Co. (Fla.) 155 So. 795.
In this case practically all of the alleged errors now attempted to be assigned and argued were deemed to have been raised too late on the first writ of error, and this court expressly so held in its former opinion reversing the previous judgment. See McNally v. State ex rel. Bond Realization Corp., 112 Fla. 434, 150 So. 751.
Upon remand of the case after its previous review, the plaintiff below, with leave of court, elected to amend the alternative writ of mandamus by eliminating from the original writ as framed the duplicitous command heretofore held objectionable on that ground, and a peremptory writ of mandamus in accordance with the amended alternative writ as so revised was ordered to be issued. This was done in comformity to the previous opinion and mandate of this court, so the resultant judgment now brought here on a second writ of error was not erroneously entered, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial