Suez Co. v. Hodgins, s. 61-429
| Decision Date | 01 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | 61-442,61-445,Nos. 61-429,s. 61-429 |
| Citation | 137 So.2d 231 |
| Parties | SUEZ COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Lilla D. HODGINS, Respondent. HALPIN, INC., an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Lilla D. HODGINS, Respondent. Alton A. REGISTER, d/b/a Alton, A. Register & Associates, Petitioners, v. Lilla HODGINS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Hinkley & Davant, Miami, for Suez Co.
Joseph E. Price, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for Halpin, Inc.
Fee, Parker & Neill, Fort Pierce, for Alton A. Register.
Kastenbaum, Mamber & Gopman, Miami Beach, for respondent.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The above-titled petitions for certiorari $The above-titled petitions for certiorari were presented to this court as one, and since the questions of law are equally applicable to all, this opinion and ruling shall be determinative of all such petitions.
The petitioners, defendants below, seek review of the order of the circuit court of Dade County which denied defendants' motions to dismiss for plaintiff's failure to take any affirmative action in the prosecution of the cause for one year.
The respondent, plaintiff below, filed her complaint on April 22, 1960. The defendants, within the time prescribed by the rules, filed their motions to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The plaintiff took no further action after filing her complaint. Defendants allege that after one year had elapsed from the date of the filing of the complaint, they filed their motions to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution pursuant to § 45.19, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The court, after hearing argument of counsel for the respective parties, entered its order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution.
The writ will not ordinarily issue to review interlocutory orders at law which are reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. However, there are some wellsettled exceptions to the principle. It was held in Kaufman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 24, 26, that certiorari is the proper remedy where the court below acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction or 'where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate.' Ford Motors v. Havee, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 572; White v. Spears, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 689.
We are of the view that the order before us for review does not come within the foregoing exceptions. There is nothing in the record to show that the denial of the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution will cause material injury to the petitioners throughout subsequent proceedings of this cause for which remedy by appeal will be inadequate. United Life Ins. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Girten v. Bouvier, 3807
...Petitioner has cited two cases in support of his position, Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., Fla.App.1957, 101 So.2d 408; and Suez Co. v. Hodgins, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 231. In the Boucher case, it was held that the order was reviewable on certiorari and that defendant was not entitled on discover......
-
Employers Fire Ins. Co. v. Blanchard, 69--707
...So.2d 689; Riedel v. Driscoll, Fla.App.1964, 127 So.2d 924; Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 188; Suez Co. v. Hodgins, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 231; Izquierdo v. Miramar Motors, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 420; Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d The instant int......
-
Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 79-439
...to accept routinely the review of such orders by certiorari. We decline jurisdiction and deny the petition. See Suez Company v. Hodgins, 137 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Petition for writ of common law certiorari is DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs. UPCHURCH, J., dissenting with opinion. UPCHURCH, ......
-
City of Miami Beach v. Town
...the city. We therefore decline to invoke our discretionary authority to review them on petition for certiorari. See Suez Co. v. Hodgins, 137 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Certiorari granted in part, denied in 1 We express no opinion as to the validity of this claim, since the action of the ......