Mendenhall v. Denham
| Decision Date | 19 March 1895 |
| Parties | MENDENHALL et al. v. DENHAM et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lake county; John D. Broome, Judge.
Action by W. D. Mendenhall and others against W. B. Denham and others for an injunction. From a decree dismissing the bill plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
It is well settled that a court of equity has no power by injunction to restrain public officers from performing any official act that they are by law required to perform.
COUNSEL A. W. Cockrell & Son, for appellants.
Alex. St. Clair-Abrams, Beggs & Palmer, and J. B. Gaines, for appellees.
The appellants, as residents, citizens, property owners, and taxpayers of the newly-created county of Lake, on July 27 1888, filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of said county against W. B. Denham, as chairman, and I. N. Withers James S. Mahoney, James M. Owens, Sr., and H. J. M. Porter as members of the board of county commissioners of said county, and against Henry H. Duncan, as clerk of the circuit court, John P. Galloway, as sheriff, D. H. Yancey, as county judge, John H. Compton, as superintendent of schools, and James C. Terry, as supervisor of registration, all of said county, whereby they allege in substance that under the provisions of chapter 3771, Laws (approved May 27, 1887), that created the new county of Lake out of territory taken from the two old counties of Orange and Sumter, three elections had been held by order of the board of county commissioners for said county for the purpose of establishing, by the votes of the people, a permanent county seat; that all three of said elections were bare of results no one place having received thereat a majority of all the votes cast, as was requisite for a choice under the provisions of said act; that a fourth election was called and ordered by the board of county commissioners to choose said county seat to be held on the 17th day of July, 1888, and was held on that day. Divers frauds and irregularities in the registration of voters prior to said fourth election are charged, and in the voting of persons for the place called 'Tavares' who were not entitled to vote, and intimidation. bribery, and fraudulent prevention of qualified persons from voting are charged, but in very general terms. It is further charged that, immediately after said election, the said Terry, as supervisor of registration, Yancey, as county judge, and Mahoney, as county commissioner, under the provisions of section 30, c. 3704 (approved June 7, 1887), entitled 'An act to provide for the registration of all legally qualified voters in the several counties of the state, and to provide for a general election and for the return of elections,' that provides that the county judge, supervisor of registration, and the president or other member of the board of county commissioners shall constitute the county canvassing board for all general elections provided for by said act, pretended to canvass what they claimed to be the returns from the various precincts in said county, and assumed to announce that the votes cast at said last election numbered in all 2,322; that of those the town of Tavares received 1,170; that Tavares received a majority of 18; and that Tavares is the county seat of said county. The bill further alleges that the board of county commissioners have not as yet received the returns of said election, or canvassed or proclaimed the result thereof; but that complainants are informed and fear, and so charge, that said board will canvass the returns and declare said Tavares has received a majority of the votes cast at said election, and will declare, establish, and maintain the said Tavares the county seat of said county, unless restrained from so doing; and that they are informed and believe that the various county officers will remove the offices and public papers in their charge to, and keep the same at, Tavares, even without and contrary to the action of said board, unless restrained. The bill prays for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, as public officers, from doing any act in recognition or in pursuance of or under color...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Tax Commission of Ohio, 465
...be used to restrain public officers from performing any official act required of them by constitutional statute (Mendenhall et al. v. Denham et al., 35 Fla. 250, 17 So. 561; and cf. Willeford et al. v. State ex rel., 43 Ark. 62; Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261; Southern Oregon Co. v. Quine, 70 ......
-
Laramie Irrigation & Power Co. v. Grant
... ... or acts which are not in excess of the authority, and ... discretion reposed in them. Willeford v. State, 43 ... Ark. 62; Mendenhall v. Denham, 35 Fla. 250, 17 So ... 261; State v. Gibbs, 13 Fla. 55, 7 Am. R. 233; ... Dickey v. Reed, 76 Ill. 261; Staple v. State, ... ...
-
Orchard v. Bd. of Com'rs of Sierra County
...P. 942; Heffner v. Board of Com'rs, 16 Wash. 273, 47 P. 430; Hamilton et al. v. Carroll, 82 Md. 326, 33 A. 648; Mendenhall et al. v. Denham et al., 35 Fla. 250, 17 So. 561; Markert et al. v. Sumter County et al., 60 Fla. 328, 53 So. 613, Ann.Cas.1912C, 690, and annotation at page 691; Parme......
-
Goodland v. Zimmerman
...244 S.W. 1068;Yoder v. Givens, 1942, 179 Va. 229, 18 S.E.2d 380;Kelley v. Kavanaugh, D.C.W.D.N.Y.1933, 3 F.Supp. 666;Mendenhall v. Denham, 1895, 35 Fla. 250, 17 So. 561; 32 C.J. ...