State v. Parks

Citation99 Fla. 1264,128 So. 837
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Decision Date06 June 1930
PartiesSTATE ex rel. DOWLING CO. et al. v. PARKS, Judge, et al.

Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of the Dowling Company and another, for writ of mandamus to be directed to L. L. Parks, as Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and another.

Writ granted.

COUNSEL

Wm. Hunter and McKay, Withers & Ramsey, all of Tampa, for relators.

Milton L. Yeats, of Tampa, for respondents.

OPINION

ELLIS J.

This is a case of original jurisdiction in mandamus. An alternative writ was issued by this court directed to L. L. Parks, as judge of the Thirteenth judicial circuit of Florida, and Jesse Hires, commanding the former to make and enter a final decree in accordance with an opinion, decision, and mandate of this court in a cause pending here, wherein the Dowling Company is appellant and Jesse Hires is appellee, or to show cause why the decree should not be entered.

The respondents answered setting up in substance that under the mandate of this court issued in the cause the respondent exercised his judicial functions, powers, and discretion in the premises and decided that 'the decree herein heretofore entered and appealed from is right, just and proper and being unable to determine from the said opinion decree and mandate of the Supreme Court aforesaid in what respects said original decree herein entered is erroneous and for what reason and as to what property therein involved the said decree was and is reversed,' etc., 'declines and refuses to enter any decree herein other than a decree to the same effect as herein heretofore entered, not being able to determine in what manner the original decree should be modified, and from which appeal was taken.'

There was demurrer to the return, a motion to quash the alternative writ by respondents, and a motion for a peremptory writ by relators. All of these assaults upon the return and the writ itself present the question only of the sufficiency of the return.

The duty of the circuit judge under the circumstances was merely a ministerial one to enter a correct decree in accordance with the opinion and decision of this court. See State ex rel. Sanchez v. Call, 36 Fla. 305, 18 So. 771; State ex rel. Claar et al. v. Branning, 85 Fla. 61, 95 So 237; State ex rel. Triay v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 So. 61.

It may be gathered from the return of the respondent circuit judge that he differed from the views expressed by the Supreme Court in the opinion and decision referred to in the writ, and that the opinion and decision left in him the discretion to again review the facts of the case, and if he arrived at the same conclusion as expressed in his decree to reaffirm that decree notwithstanding the judgment of this court to the contrary.

Although such a position may seemingly be sustained, by a show of reason, it is fundamentally unsound and proceeds upon the assumption that the decision of this court left any matter whatsoever to the chancellor's discretion. The decree entered by the chancellor was erroneous; definitely decided to be so by this court. It was erroneous, in that it applied to lands of which the complainant was not shown to have had actual possession. That fact was determined by this court and the court certainly had definitely in mind what particular lands claimed by the complainant were improperly included in the injunction. The fact that the opinion did not identify them by description according to United States survey or metes and bounds does not negative the idea that such lands were definitely ascertained by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Russell v. McQueen
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 21 Junio 2013
    ...(Fla.1974); Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886 (Fla.1953); Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657, 160 So. 509 (1935); State ex rel. Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. Sta......
  • Bishop v. Chillingworth
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1934
    ... ... E ... Chillingworth, as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth ... Judicial Circuit of the State ... Demurrer ... to the alternative writ of mandamus sustained in accordance ... with opinion ... COUNSEL ... [154 So. 255] ... proceedings to be taken within the jurisdiction of an ... inferior court. In State ex rel. Dowling Co. v ... Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837, we recognized the rule ... that mandamus lies from an appellate court of last resort to ... compel the entry of a ... ...
  • Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Financial Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 17 Julio 1975
    ...generally speaking, take any steps or issue any appropriate writ necessary to give effect to its judgment. State ex rel. Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837 (1930). It now appears that more than six months have elapsed and the trial court has not yet determined the rights of the......
  • Berger v. Leposky
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1958
    ...consent of the appellate court is thereafter required to permit presentation of new matter affecting the cause. State ex rel. Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837; Hunter v. Kearley, 155 Fla. 222, 19 So.2d 788; Beach Resort Hotel Corp. v. Wieder, Fla., 90 So.2d 52; State ex rel. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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