NATHAN MAYO, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND E. R. SESSIONS,
v.
THE MARKET FRUIT COMPANY OF SANFORD, INC., A CORPORATION
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 court held that the circuit court of Seminole County was not the proper venue for reviewing the Commissioner's order, as the order was effective in Leon County.
Appellee (Fruit Company) sought certiorari review in Seminole County of an order by the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Commissioner moved to quash t…
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 Administrative Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by each of the above named appellants from an adverse judgment in common law certiorari proceedings instituted in the circuit court of Seminole County by the appellee to have reviewed an order of the Commissioner of Agriculture, which order was made pursuant to proceedings held under Sections 596.13-.14, F.S. 1941, F.S.A.
*274The Commissioner’s order was against the appellee “Fruit Company,” with its principal place of business in Seminole County. Hearings upon the complaint against the “Fruit Company” were held in Polk and Orange Counties, but the order of the Commissioner was made in, and effective as if made in, Tallahassee, Leon County.
The proceedings were on the complaint of Sessions, of Orange County, and it will be assumed that the fruit involved was of Orange County.
The Commissioner made answer to the writ of certiorari and in his answer made a motion to quash the writ upon the ground that the circuit court of Seminole County was not the ■ proper court for such review and that the circuit court of Polk or Leon County was the only proper and competent court for such review. The motion to quash was not granted.
The question presented is not strictly one of jurisdiction, but of venue. It was not waived by proceeding without objection.
If the suit had been directed to acts of the Commissioner occurring in Seminole County, then it might be that such county would be the proper venue, but such is not the case.
The Commissioner, through his representative, very properly held his hearings against the “Fruit Company” in the places more convenient to the witnesses but, when the hearings were completed, the order against the “Fruit Company” was effective as of Tallahassee, the seat of government, and Leon County is the proper venue for the review of acts done in Leon County.
The judgment appealed is reversed, with directions to sustain the motion to quash based on the ground that such court was not the proper court for such review.
THOMAS, C. J., ADAMS, J., and WISEHEART, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…nt refuses to pay. Conner next argues that even if a petition for mandamus were appropriate, that petition should have been brought in the circuit court in and for Leon County.5 However, the case he cites, Mayo v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc., 160 Fla. 273, 34 So. 2d 543 (1948), simply does not stand for that proposition. Mayo is a pre-A.P.A. administrative appeal wherein a grower sought certiorari review in Seminole County of an order entered by the Department of Agriculture in Tallahassee. Nothing w…
-
Broward Williams v. Ferrentino, 199 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…s in Tallahassee, Florida. The Courts of the county wherein the official administrative order is made, in this instance Leon County, ordinarily have venue for judicial review of such administrative orders. Mayo v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, 1948, 160 Fla. 273, 34 So. 2d 543; Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission v. Williams, 1946, 158 Fla. 369, 28 So. 2d [*510] 431; Larson v. R. K. Cooper, Inc., Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 757, and Henderson v. Gay, Fla.1951, 49 So. 2d 325. However, there are two exceptions, imp…
-
Mayo v. Mkt. Fruit Co. of Sanford, 40 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1949)…Agriculture made pursuant to proceedings held under F.S.A. §§ 596.13, 596.14. From an adverse judgment, Nathan Mayo, as Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida, and E.R. Sessions appeal. Reversed in part and affirmed in part. See also 34 So. 2d 543. This controversy originated when E.R. Sessions, a fruit grower, filed with the Commissioner of Agriculture a formal complaint against the Market Fruit Company that he had sold to the company a crop of citrus fruit approximating 8,000 boxes, part of…1 / 2