STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. CARY D. LANDIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, RELATOR,
v.
H. F. ATKINSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, AND HENRY TAYLOR, AS RECEIVER OF THE CITY TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court vacated an order that had reinstated a case on its docket, striking a replication filed by the relator. The court found that the new arguments presented in the replication had not been previously presented to or ruled upon by the lower court.
The court held that the replication should be stricken and the order reinstating the cause vacated because the new contentions were not first presented to the Circuit Judge.
“It does not appear that the gist of the contentions raised and argued by means of this replication were ever presented to, or offered to be presented to and ruled on by the Circuit Judge.”
Establishes the primary reason for striking the replication.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator's motion for a writ of prohibition was initially denied by an equally divided court regarding a receiver for the City Trust Company. The r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appointment Of Receiver cases and more on FLexlaw
— By an equally divided court, on July 6th, 1931, an order was entered in this cause that the relator’s motion for a writ of prohibition be denied in so far as the Court’s jurisdiction is involved in the matter of a Receiver for the City Trust Company. In connection with that order, three members of this Court expressed themselves as being of the opinion that the original answer of the Circuit Judge was insufficient to preclude the award of a writ of prohibition, while three members of the Court were of the contrary opinion. Subsequent to this order, the relator asked that the cause be re-opened and re-instated on the docket with reference to the case of the City Trust Company. This was granted, and with the permission of the Court, a replication was filed to the answer of the Circuit Judge. This replication in part denies and in part confesses and attempts to avoid the facts set up in the answer of the Circuit Judge. It does not appear that the gist of the contentions raised and argued by means of this replication were ever presented to, or offered to be presented to and ruled on by the Circuit Judge.
It is therefore ordered by the Court that the replication to the answer of the respondents be stricken and that the *1093order reinstating this cause on the docket of this Court be vacated.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ideal Farms Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands IN Said Dist. against which taxes have been assessed & Maurice Mountz, 154 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1944)…o time, considered and construed certain provisions of Section 95.02, supra. See Hayes v. Belleair Development Co., 120 Fla. 326, 162 So. 698; Walker v. Landress, 111 Fla. 356, 149 So. 545; City of Port Tampa v. County of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 968, 136 So. 723; Southern Drainage District v. State of Florida, 93 Fla. 672, 112 So. 561; Browder v. Da Costa, 91 Fla. 1, 109 So. 448. Section 298.41, supra, provides that all drainage taxes provided for by .this Chapter (6458) “shall from the date of assessment…
-
City of Stuart v. Green, 156 Fla. 551 (Fla. 1945)…nd F.S.A., and there being a kinship between limitations of actions at law and the doctrine of stale demand in equity. See Norris v. Haggin et al., 10 S. Ct. 942, 136 U.S. 386, 34 L. Ed. 424; City of Port Tampa v. Hills-borough County, 102 Fla. 968, 136 So. 723. In support of this view we have been referred to the case of Common School Dist. No. 61 in Twin Falls County v. Twin Falls Bank and Trust Co., 50 Ida. 711, 4 Pac. (2nd) 342, where it was held on authority of many decisions from other states that “t…
-
State v. Whitehurst, 122 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1936)…nferior court. State, ex rel. Anderson, v. Parks, 94 Fla. 91, 113 Sou. Rep. 702; State v. White, 40 Fla. 297, 24 Sou. Rep. 160. Compare: State, ex rel. Sanford Herald, v. Wright, 98 Fla. 461, 124 Sou. Rep. 18, and State, ex rel. Landis, v. Atkinson, 102 Fla. 1092, 136 Sou. Rep. 723. It is likewise subject to the rule that prevails in prohibition cases that if an application for prohibition be too broad, the Court will not for that reason alone refuse the writ (as in mandamus cases) but will hold and limit it…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence