State v. Whitney

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHITFIELD, J.
• Citation: State v. Whitney, 66 Fla. 24, 63 So. 299 (Fla. 1913)
• Decision Date: 25 June 1913
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BURR et al. v. WHITNEY, Circuit Judge, et al.

63 So. 299

66 Fla. 24

STATE ex rel. BURR et al. v. WHITNEY, Circuit Judge, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

June 25, 1913

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1913.

Petition by the State, on the relation of Arthur E. Burr and others trustees in bankruptcy, for a writ of prohibition to F. A Whitney, Circuit Judge, and others. Return to rule to show cause adjudged insufficient.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Prohibition lies to restrain an excess of jurisdiction as well as to prevent a court from proceeding in a case where it has no jurisdiction whatever.

Where an application for prohibition is too broad, the court may mould the writ, and limit it to so much as is proper to be granted.

Where the appellate court has decided on appeal in a cause that certain proceedings in a bankruptcy court cannot be collaterally assailed in an answer to a bill in equity in the state court, the same matters cannot properly be again interposed in the same cause by a cross-bill in the trial court, and, if such a cross-bill is entertained, a writ of prohibition may issue to restrain such action.

COUNSEL Jas. F. Glen and E. R. Gunby, both of Tampa, for relators.

Bisbee & Bedell, of Jacksonville, for respondents.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

Upon an application for a writ of prohibition a rule to show cause was issued from this court. It is made to appear that Arthur E. Burr, as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of the Port Tampa Phosphate Company, a corporation, brought proceedings in the circuit court for Polk county, Fla., against Joseph Hull, the Prairie Pebble Phosphate Company, a corporation and the Savannah Trust Company, a corporation, to enforce an equitable right in real estate; that in the course of the proceedings an answer was filed to a supplemental bill, alleging the right to substitute new parties complainants, in which answer it is in effect averred that certain proceedings were had in the bankruptcy court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, by which proceedings the substituted complainants were appointed and qualified as trustees in bankruptcy of the Port Tampa Phosphate Company; and that such proceedings are invalid for want of jurisdiction and for other stated causes. Exceptions to these features of the answer were sustained. Hull. v. Burr, 64 Fla. 83, 59 So. 787. See, also, Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 432, 50 So. 754; Hull v. Burr, 61 Fla. 625, 55 So. 852; Hull v. Burr, 62 Fla. 499, 56 So. 673. In the first-cited opinion this court held that collateral attack cannot be made in a suit pending in a state court upon the judgments, orders, and proceedings of a federal court in bankruptcy, either by way of defense to a supplemental bill brought for the purpose of having successors to a resigned trustee of the bankrupt's estate made formal parties to a pending suit instituted by the resigned trustee to recover property of the bankrupt's estate, or as a defense to the original bill so instituted.

After this decision the defendant in the equity cause filed a cross-bill to the supplemental bill, whereby it is again sought to make a collateral attack upon the proceedings of the bankruptcy court of the United States of the district of Massachusetts. A motion was made to strike the cross-bill as being in violation of the...