State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation, Inc. v. Knott
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | DREW; TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON and O'CONNELL, JJ., and CARROLL and WIGGINTON |
| Citation | 97 So.2d 265 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1957 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida on Relation of MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FOUNDATION, Inc., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. James R. KNOTT, Judge of the Circuit Court, In and For The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent. |
Page 265
v.
James R. KNOTT, Judge of the Circuit Court, In and For The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent.
Page 266
Street & Greenfield, Miami Beach, and Fulton, Sullivan & Burns, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Burns, Middleton, Rogers & Farrell, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
DREW, Justice.
In Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc., v. Eller, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 868, we reversed the trial court and directed it to enter a decree compelling performance of a contract. A petition for rehearing and a motion to file a bill of review in the lower court were filed here by appellees, both were denied, the mandate of this Court was issued and was filed in the trial court. Shortly thereafter the trial court granted appellees' motion to file a bill of review in the cause. The propriety of the latter order is questioned in these prohibition proceedings.
The trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the questioned order. The rendition of the opinion and judgment and the issuance of the mandate of this Court directing the entry of a decree of specific performance removed and discretion which the trial court had in the matter and left him vested only with the power to enter such decree in accordance with the requirements of the mandate. Our judgment superseded and nullified the previous judgment of the circuit court and the only power remaining in that court over the proceedings was to carry out and place into effect the order and judbment of this Court. State v. Citrus County, 1935, 117 Fla. 792, 158 So. 705. Moreover, had this Court not acted adversely upon a motion for leave to file a bill of review, the lower court would have had no power to enter the questioned order without being first authorized to do so by leave granted by this Court. Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., 1897, 39 Fla. 243, 22 So. 697; State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 1898, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160; Reynolds v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., 1900, 42 Fla. 387, 28 So. 861.
The motion of the petitioner for the issuance of the writ of prohibition notwithstanding the return of the circuit judge is granted, the questioned order is vacated and the circuit judge is directed to enter the decree required in the mandate in Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc., v. Eller, supra, and he is thereafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. L & L Investors, Inc., No. 61-30
...and for a writ to carry into effect the mandate. In the case of State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 265, the Supreme Court dealt with a similar situation and granted prohibition. In that case the Supreme Court had reversed the trial court and dire......
-
Berger v. Leposky
...222, 19 So.2d 788; Beach Resort Hotel Corp. v. Wieder, Fla., 90 So.2d 52; State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation, Inc., v. Knott, Fla., 97 So.2d 265. The entry of the mandate in question therefore, in practical effect, left the litigation in a status equivalent to that where a peremptory wr......
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. Holloway Materials Corp., Nos. 4644
...so much as has been remanded.' Page 566 The Florida Supreme Court, in State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation Inc. v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 265, 266, when confronted with an order of a trial court granting a motion to file a bill of review, after a Supreme Court mandate directing entry o......
-
Stewart v. Berger
...3 See Berger v. Leposky, note 1, supra. 4 Ibid., 103 So.2d at page 630. 5 See State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla., 97 So.2d 265. 6 State ex rel. Coleman v. Williams, 147 Fla. 514, 3 So.2d 152; State ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625, 6 So.2d 620; Sauer v. Sauer,......
-
King v. L & L Investors, Inc., No. 61-30
...and for a writ to carry into effect the mandate. In the case of State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 265, the Supreme Court dealt with a similar situation and granted prohibition. In that case the Supreme Court had reversed the trial court and dire......
-
Berger v. Leposky
...222, 19 So.2d 788; Beach Resort Hotel Corp. v. Wieder, Fla., 90 So.2d 52; State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation, Inc., v. Knott, Fla., 97 So.2d 265. The entry of the mandate in question therefore, in practical effect, left the litigation in a status equivalent to that where a peremptory wr......
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. Holloway Materials Corp., Nos. 4644
...so much as has been remanded.' Page 566 The Florida Supreme Court, in State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation Inc. v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 265, 266, when confronted with an order of a trial court granting a motion to file a bill of review, after a Supreme Court mandate directing entry o......
-
Stewart v. Berger
...3 See Berger v. Leposky, note 1, supra. 4 Ibid., 103 So.2d at page 630. 5 See State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla., 97 So.2d 265. 6 State ex rel. Coleman v. Williams, 147 Fla. 514, 3 So.2d 152; State ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625, 6 So.2d 620; Sauer v. Sauer,......