Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Bunting
Decision Date | 28 July 1938 |
Parties | MUTUAL BEN. HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASS'N v. BUNTING. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1938.
Certiorari from Circuit Court, Duval County; Miles W. Lewis, Judge.
Action on an accident disability policy by Alice M. Bunting against the Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association. To review a judgment of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the civil court of record of Duval county in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant brings certiorari.
Writ of certiorari quashed.
Knight, Adair, Cooper & Osborne, of Jacksonville for petitioner.
Evan Evans, of Jacksonville, for respondent.
A writ of certiorari was issued by this court to review a judgment of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the civil court of record of Duval County. The judgment was for the plaintiff on an accident disability insurance policy. Questions presented on this writ of certiorari relate largely to the admissibility of evidence and the probative force of evidence.
Under the Constitution of Florida 'the judicial power of the State shall be vested in' specifically designated courts and judges, 'and such other Courts or Commissions as the Legislature may from time to time ordain and establish.' Sec. 1, Art. 5, as amended in 1914. See also sec. 35, Art. 5 as amended in 1910, and added secs. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 of Art. 5.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is appellate only 'in all cases at law and in equity originating in Circuit Courts and of appeals from the Circuit Courts in cases arising before Judges of the County Courts in matters pertaining to their probate jurisdiction and in the management of the estates of infants, and in cases of conviction of felony in the criminal courts, and in all criminal cases originating in the Circuit Courts.' In addition to its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court 'shall have the power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and also all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.' Sec. 5, Art. 5. The power to issue writs of certiorari, and in appropriate cases, writs of prohibition or mandamus, enables the Supreme Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over other courts, in conformity with the command of section 4 of the organic Declaration of Rights that 'all courts in this State shall be open, so that every person for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy, by due course of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.'
Under section 1, Article 5, of the Constitution as amended in 1914, civil courts of record have been established by Chapter 6904, Acts of 1915, superseded by Chapter 8521, Acts of 1921, sec. 5155(1) et seq., Perm.Supp.C.G.L.; and such courts have also been established by Chapter 11357, Acts of 1925, Extra Session, section 5156 et seq., C.G.L.
Section 11, Article 5, Constitution, gives to the circuit courts defined original and appellate jurisdiction including final appellate jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising in the county court or before the county judge; and also gives to the circuit courts jurisdiction 'of such other matters as the Legislature may provide.'
Pursuant to such organic grant of miscellaneous jurisdiction to the circuit court, sections 11 and 12 of Chapter 8521, Acts of 1921, and sections 11 and 12 of Chapter 11357, Acts of 1925, Extra Session, sections 5166 and 5167, C.G.L., sections 5155(11), 5155(12), Comp.Gen.Laws Supp., give to the circuit courts appellate jurisdiction in all cases decided by the civil courts of record in the same manner and with the same limitations as in writs of error from the circuit courts to the county court; and such statutes also provide for writs of certiorari from the Supreme Court to judgments of the circuit courts in cases appealed from the civil courts of record to the circuit courts. See State ex rel. v. Aetna C. & S. Co., 84 Fla. 123, 92 So. 871, 24 A.L.R. 1262; State v. Atkinson, 102 Fla. 1028, 137 So. 266; State ex rel. v. Barrs, Judge, 105 Fla. 27, 140 So. 908; State ex rel. v. Circuit Court, 110 Fla. 46, 148 So. 522; State ex rel. v. Gray, Circuit Judge, 116 Fla. 510, 156 So. 493; State ex rel. v. Dickenson, Clerk, 103 Fla. 907, 138 So. 376; American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740; Id., 86 Fla. 626, 98 So. 820; State ex rel. v. Barrs, Judge, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668; Barrs, Judge, v. State ex rel. Jacksonville R. & M. Co., 91 Fla. 30, 107 So. 249.
The constitution does not authorize two successive appeals from a judgment or decree to successively higher courts, except appeals to the Supreme Court 'from the Circuit Courts in cases arising before Judges of the County Court in matters pertaining to their probate jurisdiction and in the management of the estates of infants.'
While a writ of certiorari lies from the Supreme Court to judgments of the circuit courts rendered in causes appealed to the circuit courts from civil courts of record, such writs of certiorari issued from the Supreme Court do not authorize a review of the circuit court judgments as on writ of error. Such a procedure would conflict with the purpose of the Constitution to give to the circuit courts 'final appellate jurisdiction' in all cases arising in courts that are inferior to the circuit courts, with exceptions not material here. See Edwards v. Knight, 100 Fla. 1704, 132 So. 459.
Under the provision of sections 5166, 5167, C.G.L. and sections 5155(11), 5155(12), Permanent Supplement (1936) C.G.L., the Supreme Court, on writs of certiorari to judgments of the circuit courts, rendered in causes appealed to the circuit courts from the civil courts of record, should review and adjudicate such matters as may properly be determined on writs of certiorari as their appropriate scope and use under the law, have been or may be developed by the decisions of the Supreme Court. The purpose in issuing such writ of certiorari is to determine in each case whether the judgment sought to be reviewed is illegal or is essentially irregular or prejudicial and materially harmful to the party duly complaining; to the end that the commands, prohibitions and limitations of controlling law may prevail in the administration of the law. American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740; Id., 86 Fla. 626, 98 So. 820; Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Florida Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161, 112 So. 66, 113 So. 384; Hamway v. Seaboard A. L. Ry. Co., 101 Fla. 1483, 136 So. 628.
'On writs of certiorari the ultimate adjudication is to quash the judgment complained of, or to quash the writ of certiorari.' First Nat. Bank v. Gibbs, 78 Fla. 118, 82 So. 618, 620.
'In proceedings in certiorari addressed to the circuit court as an appellate court in a cause arising in the civil court of record questions relating to the merits of the cause and in no wise affecting the jurisdiction of the lower courts or the external proceedings in the cause will not be reviewed; there being substantial supporting evidence.' Hamway v. Seaboard A. L. Ry. Co., 101 Fla. 1483, 136 So. 628.
The declaration in the civil court of record contains allegations
'That' the policy insured 'plaintiff against disability resulting from bodily injuries sustained by the insured through accidental means as a result of operating, driving, demonstrating, adjusting, riding in or on an automobile, or as a result of being run down, struck or run over by an automobile, * * *.
injury 'and directly and independently of all other causes, plaintiff was wholly and continuously disabled from the date of said accident until the date hereof; that in and by said accident the plaintiff sustained an injury to her head and to her brain and nervous system, which injury resulted from said accident and directly and independently of all other causes; that on account of said injury plaintiff entered a hospital and was necessarily and continuously confined therein solely on account of said injury for a period of five days, that plaintiff has been continuously under the professional care and regular attendance, at least once a week, beginning with the first treatment, of a licensed physician and surgeon other than herself since the date of said accident; * * *.'
There were numerous pleas raising issues of fact on the allegations of the declaration.
On the question of total disability of the plaintiff as a result of the injury alleged to have been sustained, Dr. J. G. Lyerly, a witness for the plaintiff, who qualified as a specialist in surgery of the brain and nervous system, was interrogated as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Penrose v. Commercial Travelers Ins. Co.
... ... by his wife and was, because of his health, excused from jury service ... 414, 192 N.Y.S. 513; Wade v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n, 115 W.Va. 694, 177 ... Dunning v. Massachusetts Mut. Acc. Ass'n, 99 Me. 390, 59 A. 535; Bruzas v. Peerless ... Health & Accident Ass'n v. Bunting, 133 ... Page 976 ... Fla. 646, 183 So. 321; ... ...
-
Jones v. State, 64042
...v. Andres, 148 Fla. 742, 5 So.2d 7 (1941); Cacciatore v. State, 147 Fla. 758, 3 So.2d 584 (1941); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association v. Bunting, 133 Fla. 646, 183 So. 321 (1938); American Railway Express v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740 (1922); Benton v. State, 74 Fla. 30, ......
-
Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. Air Cargo Expediters, Inc.
...Brinson v. Tharin, 1930, 99 Fla. 696, 127 So. 313. This holding has been more recently confirmed in Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Bunting, 1938, 133 Fla. 646, 183 So. 321 and Curry U-Drive It, Inc., v. Ross, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 796.3 While we find that much has been written on t......
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Saul
... ... the general health, ... [5 S.E.2d 221] ... strength, and the ... v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 111 W.Va. 518, 163 ... S.E. 4, ... 180 So. 327; Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n v ... Bunting, 133 Fla. 646(5), 183 So ... ...
-
Common law writs - from the practical to the extraordinary.
...R. APP. P. 9.100(K). (5) State v. Wilson, 690 So. 2d 1361, 1363 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1997); Mut. Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n v. Bunting, 133 Fla. 646, 183 So. 321 (1938); FLA. CONST. art. v, [section] (6) Senate Joint Resolution No. 20-C (1980); In re Emergency Amendments to Rules of Appell......