State v. Bird
| Decision Date | 24 March 1931 |
| Citation | 101 Fla. 1229,133 So. 84 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ROBERTS et al. v. BIRD, Circuit Judge. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of J. P. Roberts and others, for a writ of prohibition prayed to be directed to the Honorable John U. Bird, one of the Circuit Judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit.
Rule nisi dismissed.
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the law and the Rules of Practice in this state, orders and decrees in chancery other than those governed by Rule 45 and section 4945, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, do not become absolute until thirty days after the same are filed in the cause. Courts may hear and determine motions for rehearing in chancery causes filed at any time within thirty days from the entry of the order or decree upon which rehearing is sought.
A stipulation for reinstating signed by counsel for the respective parties to a cause may properly be considered by the chancellor as a motion for rehearing.
J. C. Davant, of Clearwater, for relators.
Carey & Askew, of St. Petersburg, for respondent.
In this case a rule nisi was issued directed to the Honorable John U Bird, one of the judges of the Sixth judicial circuit of Florida, commanding him to show cause why writ of prohibition should be issued prohibiting his assuming jurisdiction in a certain cause pending in the circuit court of the state of Florida in and for Pinellas county on the chancery side of said court, wherein Warren Webster is complainant and R. W Scott, and, if married, Mrs. R. W. Scott, Roy R. Glenn, and Fred G. Hollman, Martin Mee, and, if married, Mrs. Martin Mee, J. P. Roberts, Henry G. Geesink, and J. C. Davant are defendants.
Demurrer and answers have been filed.
The pleadings show that the stated cause was pending in the circuit court of the Sixth judicial circuit, and that decree pro confesso had been entered against all defendants except R. W. Scott. R. W. Scott had appeared in the cause, and certain pleadings had been filed in his behalf when, on to wit, the 22d day of August, 1930, a stipulation was entered into between counsel for the respective parties then before the court and an order made thereon as follows, to wit:
On the 19th day of September another stipulation made and entered into by the same attorneys representing the same parties was filed in the following language:
'Come now Complainant and Defendant R. W. Scott, a single man, by their undersigned solicitors and show unto the court:
'1. That upon stipulation entered into by and between the same parties as hereto the above styled case was dismissed by order of this court filed herein August 27th, 1930.
'2. That said stipulation and dismissal were based solely on the fact that a complete settlement of the matters involved in this case was contemplated as a certainty and further that the defendant R. W. Scott by his said counsel has promised and agreed with complainant that said settlement would be entirely satisfactory to complainant and/or his solicitors; that there was no other consideration for said stipulation and dismissal; that said contemplated settlement has wholly and completely failed and said defendant R. W. Scott has wholly failed, neglected and refused to make said settlement satisfactory to complainant and/or his solicitors and has otherwise failed to make any settlement whatsoever.
'3. That said defendant is the only remaining active defendant in this suit, decrees pro confesso having been duly and regularly entered against all of the other defendants hereto.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batteiger v. Batteiger
...inasmuch as the letters were obviously in response to an announced final decree. See Rule 3.16(a), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. Cf. State ex rel. Roberts v. Bird, 101 Fla. 1229, 133 So. 84. It has been held that the proper function of a petition for rehearing is to present to th......