White v. State ex rel. Johnson
Decision Date | 23 November 1948 |
Citation | 37 So.2d 580,160 Fla. 965 |
Parties | WHITE, County Judge, et al. v. STATE ex rel. JOHNSON et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1948.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; Victor O. Wehle judge.
M. H Jones, of Clearwater, Anna A. Krivitsky, of Tampa, and Bezoni & McCord, of Tallahassee, for appellants.
Joseph W Nichols, of Clearwater, and Archie Clement, of Tarpon Springs, for appellees.
This is an appeal of a final judgment in prohibition wherein a peremptory writ was issued.
The first appearance of the subject matter of this case was in Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So.2d 438.
The second appearance was a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court seeking to have the court direct the manner in which the county judge should proceed, which mandamus was denied by the circuit court and affirmed by this court--State ex rel. Johnson v. White, Fla., 36 So.2d 224.
The real party in interest to the present proceedings is Blanche Johnson, appellant. Appellee, Barbara Joyce Johnson, is the same party who brought the first appeal, who also brought the mandamus action, and who later sought prohibition to prevent the county judge from further proceedings by the taking of testimony at a hearing upon the issues presented and recited in Johnson v. Johnson, supra.
Respecting the use of prohibition, this Court, in the Lorenzo v. Murphy case, cited with approval the prior holdings, towit:
'In the case of Peacock, County Judge, et al. v. Miller, decided February 28, 1936, as reported in 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212, this court held: 'Prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct commission of errors on part of court that is proceeding within its jurisdiction.'' Lorenzo v. Murphy, 159 Fla. 639, 32 So.2d 421, 423.
And also:
'In the case of Adams et ux. v. Lewis et al., decided February 18, 1941, as reported in 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852, 853, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Elwyn Thomas, said: '* * * proceedings in prohibition should be restricted to the field for which they were meant and not become a vehicle for the determination of questions involving the correct or incorrect decisions of another court in matters in which that court has the authority to act.'' Ibid.
It affirmatively appears that the county judge had jurisdiction over a case of the class then before him and over the parties to the proceedings and that the jurisdiction of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Dept. of General Services v. Willis
...the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. See State ex rel. Hill v. Hearn, 99 So.2d 231 (Fla.1957); White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So.2d 580 (1948). We therefore treat the complaint as though it alleges or is amendable to allege the Department's bidding and con......
-
State ex rel. Losey v. Willard
...matter. State ex rel. Jennings v. Frederick, 137 Fla. 773, 189 So. 1; Adams v. Lewis, 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852; White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So.2d 580; State ex rel. Johnson v. Anderson, Fla., 1948, 37 So.2d 910; Harrison v. Murphy, 132 Fla. 579, 181 So. 386; Peacock v.......
-
Commonwealth v. Watson
...error, and when a court has power to render a judgment, it has the power render an erroneous one. E.g. , White v. State ex rel. Johnson , 160 Fla. 965, 37 So.2d 580, 581 (1948) ; In re Bourke’s Estate , 159 Kan. 553, 156 P.2d 501, 505 (1945).III. CONCLUSIONFor the reasons set forth above, w......
-
State ex rel. Johnson v. White
...in, Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So.2d 438; State ex rel. Johnson v. White, 160 Fla. 782, 36 So.2d 224, and White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So.2d 580. No useful purpose could be served by a recital of the various and sundry legal gyrations which have apparently clou......