State ex rel. Johnson v. White

• Citation: 44 So.2d 661
• Parties: STATE ex rel. JOHNSON et al. v. WHITE, County Judge.
• Decision Date: 24 February 1950
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

Page 661

44 So.2d 661

STATE ex rel. JOHNSON et al. v. WHITE, County Judge.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

Feb. 24, 1950.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1950.

Joseph W. Nichols, Clearwater, and Archie Clement, Tarpon Springs, for appellants.

Frank Bezoni, Tallahassee, M. H. Jones, Clearwater, Anna Krivitsky, St. Petersburg, and W. S. Wightman, Clearwater, for appellee.

TILLMAN, Associate Justice.

This case in some form or other has been to the Supreme Court three times. The decisions are reported in, Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So.2d 438; State ex rel. Johnson v. White, 160 Fla. 782, 36 So.2d 224, and White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So.2d 580. No useful purpose could be served by a recital of the various and sundry legal gyrations which have apparently clouded what otherwise should have been a simple administration of an estate. The case is now before the court on an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County and an alternative writ of mandamus was issued out of the Circuit Court to the County Judge's Court to enter an order permitting additional pleadings to be filed in the cause in the County Judge's Court. The County Judge, the Honorable Jack White, filed a return in which he set up the fact that the additional pleadings had already been filed, that they are among the records in the case, and that the County Judge's Court considered these pleadings as a part of the cause and did so treat them in the trial of the cause.

Upon this return on the part of the County Judge, the Circuit Court of Pinellas County (Judge Wehle) entered the order quashing the alternative writ of mandamus.

It is not suggested and we do not believe it can be suggested that any other course on the part of the Circuit Court would have been eitner proper or legal. The order of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.

ADAMS, C. J., and CHAPMAN and HOBSON, JJ., concur.