THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE REESE, 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 brought by the City of Pensacola because it was not filed in the name of the proper party. The court found that the writ should have been issued in the name of the officer, not the city itself.
Yes, the writ of error must be brought in the name of the officer, the party to the judgment, not in the name of the city.
“Even if the writ may be issued at the instance of the city as a party aggrieved by the judgment, although it is not strictly “ a party to such judgment,” as provided by the statute, still we are entirely satisfied that such writ must issue, not in the name of the city, but in the name of the officer, the party to the judgment.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for dismissing the writ of error based on improper party designation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Reese was convicted of violating city ordinances and subsequently discharged by a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Circuit Court. The City o…
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.
[*438] Mr. Justice Westcott
delivered the opinion of the court.
A trial was had before the Mayor of the City of Pensacola of George Reese for an alleged violation of the ordinances of the city. After conviction and while in the custody of the Marshal the prisoner sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the Judge of the Circuit Court, who discharged him. The City of Pensacola now brings this writ of error in its own name, and not in the name of its officer, the person to whom the writ was issued and the party to the judgment. Even if the writ may be issued at the instance of the city as a party aggrieved by the judgment, although it is not strictly “ a party to such judgment,” as provided by the statute, still we are entirely satisfied that such writ must issue, not in the name of the city, but in the name of the officer, the party to the judgment. The case must be brought here as it was in the Circuit Court. This writ must therefore be dismissed. In the present state of the record, the question whether the city may sue out the writ in the name of its officer, does not arise, and of it we say nothing.
The writ is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crownover v. The Honorable George T. Shannon, 170 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1964)…ning appeals by the “defendant” in a criminal prosecution allowing the defendant ninety days to appeal. The appeal was not by the State or the state agency; the Court based the decision on Sweat v. Hixon, supra. In City of Pensacola v. Reese, 1884, 20 Fla. 437, we held that a writ of error must be sued out in the name of a party to the record and that in habeas corpus proceedings, upon the discharge of a prisoner held by the city marshall, a writ of error in the name of the city would not lie because the…
-
The United States Mut. Accident Ass'n of the City of N.Y. v. Tallulah H. Weller, 30 Fla. 210 (Fla. 1892)