Peacock v. State Ex Rel. American Mortgage & Finance Corp.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtDAVIS, Justice.
Citation164 So. 680,122 Fla. 25
PartiesPEACOCK, Mayor, et al. v. STATE ex rel. AMERICAN MORTGAGE & FINANCE CORPORATION.
Decision Date14 December 1935

164 So. 680

122 Fla. 25

PEACOCK, Mayor, et al.
v.
STATE ex rel. AMERICAN MORTGAGE & FINANCE CORPORATION.

Florida Supreme Court

December 14, 1935


En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D. Barns, Judge.

Mandamus proceeding by the State, on the relation of the American Mortgage & Finance Corporation, against George L. Peacock, as Mayor of the city of South Miami, and others. To review an adverse judgment, defendants bring error.

Judgment affirmed, with directions.

COUNSEL [164 So. 681]

[122 Fla. 26] John C. Sullivan and John J. Lindsey, both of Miami, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles A. Morehead, of Miami, for defendant in error.

OPINION

DAVIS, Justice.

This was a mandamus proceeding brought in aid of a judgment at law recovered by the defendant in error against the city of South Miami, Fla. From the award of a peremptory writ of mandamus, the city has sued out this writ of error. The case is now being considered by this court on defendant in error's motion to dismiss the appellate proceedings as frivolous and sued out merely for delay. Section 4639, C.G.L., section 2920, R.G.S. Upon consideration of the motion, we have concluded to apply the rule laid down in Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554, 158 So. 123, wherein it was held that where the transcript supports the judgment appealed from and no harmful errors appear, the Supreme Court, in disposing of a motion to dismiss an appeal as frivolous, will affirm the judgment without retaining the case on the docket for re-examination on its merits at a later date.

An inspection of the transcript and written arguments submitted in the briefs discloses that every material point in controversy between the parties has been heretofore adjudicated against the contentions of plaintiffs in error in the prior decisions of this court in Duboise Const. Co. v. City of South Miami, 108 Fla. 362, 146 So. 833; City of South Miami v. Duboise Const. Co., 115 Fla. 619, 155 So. 795.

That mandamus lies to compel a municipal corporation to make provision for paying judgments duly rendered against it scarcely admits of serious argument contra. The record in this case shows that the judgment herein appealed [122 Fla. 27] from is from a final judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus to enforce the judgment heretofore rendered against the city of South Miami and thereafter duly affirmed by this court. Errors, if any, committed by the court below, in the procedural...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., MID-FLORIDA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 31, 1989
    ...City of Ocoee v. State ex rel. Harris, 155 Fla. 514, 20 So.2d 674 (1945); Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage and Finance Corp., 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935). Indeed, in this instance it may be the growers' only remedy as long as the department refuses to Conner next argues that e......
  • City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, No. 70-1158
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 13, 1971
    ...of a judgment against a City, a petition for writ of mandamus may be employed. Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage & Finance Co., 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 The judgment appealed is reversed. Reversed. --------------- 1 There is no claim or ground alleged under RCP 1.540. ...
  • Cummings v. City of Miami Beach, No. 41653
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 31, 1972
    ...that a subsequent judgment for interest was improper and referred to Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage & Finance Corporation, 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935), which held that a petition for writ of mandamus may be employed to enforce a judgment against a The question of whether int......
3 cases
  • Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., MID-FLORIDA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 31, 1989
    ...City of Ocoee v. State ex rel. Harris, 155 Fla. 514, 20 So.2d 674 (1945); Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage and Finance Corp., 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935). Indeed, in this instance it may be the growers' only remedy as long as the department refuses to Conner next argues that e......
  • City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, No. 70-1158
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 13, 1971
    ...of a judgment against a City, a petition for writ of mandamus may be employed. Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage & Finance Co., 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 The judgment appealed is reversed. Reversed. --------------- 1 There is no claim or ground alleged under RCP 1.540. ...
  • Cummings v. City of Miami Beach, No. 41653
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 31, 1972
    ...that a subsequent judgment for interest was improper and referred to Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage & Finance Corporation, 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935), which held that a petition for writ of mandamus may be employed to enforce a judgment against a The question of whether int......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT