A. C. BARNETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. B. TOGNI, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 dismissed a writ of error challenging a circuit judge's refusal to allow a supersedeas in a case arising from county court proceedings against a delinquent tenant. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction because there was no final judgment from the circuit court and no constitutional or statutory authority for reviewing county court tenant matters.
The Court lacks jurisdiction to review the circuit judge's order because: (1) there is no final judgment of the circuit court to review—only a refusal to act; and (2) there is no constitutional or statutory provision authorizing review of county court tenant proceedings by writ of error or appeal.
“The constitutional power of this court is limited to 'appellate jurisdiction in all cases at law and in equity commenced in circuit courts,' and 'appeals from the circuit court in eases arising in the county court as a court of probate, and in the management of the estates of infants, and in criminal cases commeuced in the circuit court,' and . to certain original writs.”
Establishes the limited scope of the supreme court's constitutional jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnett was summoned before the county judge under the 1875 act relating to delinquent tenants, tried, and judgment rendered against him. He attempted…
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 Supersedeas cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval county. The papers before this court, and which constitute the record, consist, first, of a petition of plaintiff in error addressed to the circuit judge, alleging that he had been summoned before the county judge, under the act of February 2d, 1875, relating to proceedings against delinquent tenants, and had been tried, and judgment had been rendered against him by the county judge, from which judgment he had appealed, but the county judge refused to entertain the appeal and to allow a supersedeas ; wherefore he presents his petition to the circuit judge praying that a writ of supersedeas be allowed; and, second,, an order signed .by the circuit judge denying the petition on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such casé ; and this is entered of record.
This writ of error is prosecuted upon, this determination of the circuit court, to reverse it.
*329Two difficulties seem to stare us iii the face at the outset. The constitutional power of this court is limited to “ appellate jurisdiction in all cases at law and in equity commenced in circuit courts,” and “ appeals from the circuit court in eases arising in the county court as a court of probate, and in the management of the estates of infants, and in criminal cases commeuced in the circuit court,” and . to certain original writs. Const. Art. YI. Sec. 5.
The first difficulty is that there is no judgment of the circuit court in any case “ commenced in the circuit court” or elsewhere, the only determination in the matter being a refusal to allow a supersedeas upon an appeal from the county judge. The circuit judge merely declines to act and renders no judgment in the proceedings sought to be brought before him ; and as there is no final-judgment, there is nothing to appeal from, or to which a writ, of error will lie under the statute regulating appeals and writs of error; and second, (it is deemed proper to add,) had there been a judgment of the circuit court in the case upon the appeal, either upon a review or a dismissal of the appeal, it must have been final so far as the power of review of this court is concerned.
The county judges have such jurisdiction relating to the “unlawful detention of lands and tenements, subject to the appellete jurisdiction of the circuit court, as may be provided by law;” but there is no provision in the constitution or statutes authorizing a review of these proceedings by this court by writ of error or appeal.
The writ of error is therefore dismissed.