Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1932 |
| Citation | 104 Fla. 418,140 So. 218 |
| Parties | ULSCH v. MOUNTAIN CITY MILL CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Duval County; George Couper Gibbs, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Rehearing and motion to give directions to circuit court denied.
For former opinion, see 138 So. 483.
COUNSEL Lloyd Z. Morgan and William D. Morgan, both of Jacksonville, for petitioner.
McCollum & Howell, of Jacksonville, for respondent.
In this case the judgment of the circuit court reversing a judgment of the civil court of record and directing the civil court of record to enter judgment for the opposite party was quashed. See Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co., 138 So. 483 opinion filed December 21, 1931.
By petition for rehearing, we are asked to make an order to the effect that, if this court should still be of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be quashed then, in that event, the judgment of this court should be enlarged by directing the circuit court to order a new trial in said cause, with privilege to file in the civil court of record a plea to the merits, in order to prevent a palpable miscarriage of justice.
By direction of the court, counsel have filed briefs on the question: 'Whether the Supreme Court has authority to do more on certiorari than quash the judgment, that is, to direct the Circuit Court to grant a new trial or permit other pleadings?' That is the question we are now called on to decide.
Our conclusion is, that on certiorari we have no authority to do more than either quash the writ of certiorari or quash the judgment brought here by that writ. Benton v. State, 74 Fla. 30, 76 So. 341; American Ry Express Co. v. Weatherford, 86 Fla. 626, 98 So. 820; Basnet v. Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523.
But when a judgment is quashed here on writ of certiorari, that cause is again remitted to the consideration and determination of the court whose judgment has been set aside. It is consequently within the power of that court to render another judgment not in conflict with the holding of the Supreme Court of other court exercising powers pursuant to the writ of certiorari granted.
In the case at bar, the circuit court, whose judgment of reversal has been quashed, is now at full liberty to render any judgment warranted by the record on appeal from the civil court of record, provided the same be not in conflict with the law of the case as necessarily determined by the proceeding already had in this court.
We have no authority to direct what the judgment of the circuit court shall be. We simply quash the judgment heretofore rendered by that court, for the reasons pointed out in our opinion leaving it to the circuit court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Cook
...112 So. 66, 113 So. 384; Brinson v. Tharin, 99 Fla. 696, 127 So. 313; Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co., 103 Fla. 932, 138 So. 483, 484, 140 So. 218; Des Rocher & Towing Co. v. Third National Bank of Miami, 106 Fla. 466, 143 So. 768; American Ry. Express Co. v. Weatherford, 86 Fla. 626, 98 So......
-
Kilgore v. Bird
...138 Fla. 696, 190 So. 35; Bringley v. C.I.T. Corp., 119 Fla. 529, 160 So. 680; Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co., 103 Fla. 932, 138 So. 483, 140 So. 218. In this case if is duly shown that the order complained of violates the essential requirements of the law and reasonably may cause the very......
-
American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Fegenbush
...It cannot stand as to the lettuce and must therefore be quashed as an entirety for the entry of a proper judgment. Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co. (Fla.) 140 So. 218, Ulsch v. Gibbs (Fla.) 143 So. 772, decided Oct. 1932, not yet reported [in state report]. Judgment of circuit court affirmin......
-
Janet Realty Corp. v. Hoffman's, Inc.
...afforded by law. In such cases the common law writ of certiorari will lie. See Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co., 103 Fla. 932, 138 So. 483, 140 So. 218; Poultry & Egg Co. v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 126 Fla. 563, 172 So. 82; Bringley v. C. I. T. Corporation, 119 Fla. 529, 160 So. 680; Robinson v......