Peacock v. State Ex Rel. American Mortgage & Finance Corp.
| Citation | 164 So. 680,122 Fla. 25 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1935 |
| Parties | PEACOCK, Mayor, et al. v. STATE ex rel. AMERICAN MORTGAGE & FINANCE CORPORATION. |
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.
John C. Sullivan and John J. Lindsey, both of Miami for plaintiffs in error.
Charles A. Morehead, of Miami, for defendant in error.
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 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 aspects of the mandamus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc.
...to dispute. See, e.g., 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 Co......
-
City of Miami Beach v. Cummings
...In the case 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 (1935). The judgment appealed is Reversed. 1 There is no claim or ground alleged under RCP 1.540. ...
-
Cummings v. City of Miami Beach, 41653
...Sub judice merely held 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 ......