Wiecking v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1913 |
| Citation | 66 Fla. 49,62 So. 898 |
| Parties | WIECKING v. STATE ex rel. COACHMAN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of S. S. Coachman and others against C. W. Wiecking. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
The county commissioners are not the proper parties to mandamus the clerk to draw a warrant ordered by them in favor of private parties.
COUNSEL W. H. Surrency, of St. Petersburg, for plaintiff in error.
Sparkman & Carter and James F. Glen, both of Tampa, for defendants in error.
Upon the relation of three of the county commissioners of Pinellas county, Wiecking, as county clerk and ex officio clerk of the board, was mandamused to prepare, sign, and issue a warrant directed to the county treasurer, in favor of F. M. Simonton Sparkman & Carter, and James F. Glen for the sum of $2,000, as the fee for services rendered and to be rendered by them as attorneys for the board in the matter of a contest pending over the calling of a county seat election.
The objection raised by the respondent that the commissioners are not the proper parties should have been sustained, upon the direct authority of Pennock v. State ex rel. Hood, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004.
After the commissioners have ordered the warrant to issue, the direct pecuniary interest in the perfecting of that warrant is in those named as its beneficiaries, and the county should not be put to the expense of comploying counsel and incurring a liability for costs for the primary benefit of these private individuals.
The case of Holland v. State ex rel. Duval County, 23 Fla. 123, 1 So. 521, involved the continuing care and management of the county convicts, a peculiarly public duty, and not a private right; while Ray v. Wilson, 29 Fla. 342, 10 So. 613, 14 L. R. A. 773, is authority to the right of the private party to whom the warrant is issued to compel the county treasurer to pay it. Montgomery v. State ex rel. Thompson, 35 Neb. 655, 53 N.W. 568, is planted squarely upon a statute of that state, making it the duty of the county superintendent to bring mandamus, if after investigation he find the treasurer contumacious in refusing to pay a school warrant.
Our own decision in the Pennock Case is directly in line with Portland Stone Ware Co. v. Taylor, 17 R.I. 33, 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Ex Rel. Norris v. Chancey
... ... such third persons of an indebtedness alleged to be due to ... such third parties, in which claim the relators have no ... sort of interest whatsoever, and the motion to quash the ... alternative writ should have been granted upon this ... This ... case was followed by Wiecking v. State ex rel. Coackman ... et al., 66 Fla. 49, 62 So. 898. In that case the board ... of county commissioners had ordered a warrant to issue to ... certain attorneys as their fee for services rendered, and the ... county clerk, as ex officio clerk of the board, refused to ... issue and ... ...
-
Dick v. State ex rel. Harris, 3933
...the instant case from the situations in Pennock v. State ex rel. Hood, 1911, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004, and Wiecking v. State ex rel. Coackman, 1913, 66 Fla. 49, 62 So. 898, because the direct interest sought to be coerced in each of those cases was not in the Board but in others who would r......
-
Barry v. Phoenix Union High School, Dist. of Maricopa County
... ... this position we are cited to a score of cases, from this ... jurisdiction where creditors have brought mandamus actions ... against the State Auditor, for example see Clark v ... Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 286, 88 P.2d 542; Earhart ... [67 Ariz. 387] v. Frohmiller, 65 Ariz. 221, 178 P.2d ... 539; Portland ... Stone-Ware Co. v. Taylor, 17 R.I. 33, 19 A. 1086; ... State ex rel. Starrett v. James, 14 Wash. 82, 44 P ... 116; Wiecking v. State ex rel. Coachman, 66 Fla. 49, ... 62 So. 898; Pennock v. State ex rel. Hood, 61 Fla ... 383, 54 So. 1004. These early Florida cases, just ... ...
-
State v. Macgibbon
... ... county, even though such warrant is to be drawn in favor of ... and made payable to a third party the vendor of the land that ... such warrant is to pay the purchase price of ... The ... headnote in the published reports of the case of Wiecking ... v. State ex rel. Coackman, 66 Fla. 49, 62 So. 898, is ... misleadingly broad, and is hereby qualified so as to read as ... follows: 'The county commissioners are not the proper ... parties to mandamus the clerk to draw a warrant ordered by ... them in favor of private parties, unless such ... ...