ALABAMA COAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
R. F. BOWDEN, SHERIFF OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Alabama Coal Company sought mandamus to compel the sheriff to approve a forthcoming bond and redeliver property seized in a replevin action. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the writ as moot because the underlying replevin suit had been decided against the Coal Company, making any mandamus relief futile.
The writ of error must be dismissed because mandamus relief would be futile. Since the replevin suit was decided in favor of Christopher, compelling the sheriff to accept a bond conditioned on the Coal Company's custody would accomplish nothing practical, and neither the Circuit Court nor the Supreme Court can now compel redelivery to a party with no legal right to the property.
“It therefore becomes apparent that it is unnecessary to decide the questions involved in this proceeding by mandamus, as a decision in favor of the plaintiff in error would result in no practical benefit to it inasmuch as by the replevin suit this day affirmed, it is shown to have no right in the property, redelivery of which is sought by the mandamus.”
Establishes the core rationale for dismissal—that mandamus relief would be futile because the underlying replevin judgment determined the Coal Company had no right to the property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 1, 1895, John G. Christopher commenced a replevin action against Alabama Coal Company to recover two lighters with equipment. The sheriff too…
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 Forthcoming Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause was referred by the court to-its commissioners for investigation, who report that it ought to be dismissed. After due consideration the court finds from the transcript of the record that upon relation -of the plaintiff in -error an alternative writ of mandamus issued from the Circuit Court iof Duval County on the first day of April, 1895, commanding defendant in error to approve a certain bond and to deliver to relator certain property or show cause why he failed so to do. Such proceedings were subsequently hadi in the case that the alternative writ wa-s quashed, and the peremptory writ denied, and from the final judgment entered this writ of érror was taken by the relator. It appears from the transcript that on March 1, 1895, one John G-. Christopher began an action of replevin against relator to recover possession of two lighters with anchors, davits, chains, &c.; that the writ of replevin duly issued and came to the hands of defendant in error as sheriff to be executed; that by virtue of such writ the defendant in error took possession of the two lighters, and thereafter relator tendered him a forthcoming bond and demanded that possession of said property be redelivered to it as required by Section 1719, Revised Statutes, and that the defendant in error declined to approve said bond or to redeliver said property for reasons not necessary to be stated.
The replevin suit referred to, viz: Christopher against relator, after the writ of error was sued out in this case was tried in the Circuit Court of Duval county, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of Christopher. Thereafter relator sued out a writ of error to this court to review the judgment in that case, and this court has this day decided that there is no reversible error in that proceeding and affirmed the judgment. It therefore becomes apparent that it is unnecessary to decide the questions involved in this proceeding by mandamus, as a/decision in favor of the plaintiff in error would result in no practical benefit to it inasmuch as by the replevin /suit this day affirmed, it is shown to have no right in the property,, redelivery of which is sought by the mandamus. Neither the Circuit Court nor this court can now, after • the replevin suit has been finally determined in favor of Christopher, the plaintiff therein, compel the sheriff to accept a bond conditioned that relator, the defendant in the replevin suit, will have the property forthcoming to abide the result of the replevin suit, and thereupon compel him, the sheriff, to redeliver the property under such bond to the relator. Nothing can be accomplished by a decision of thiisi mandamus case, whether the .decision be for or against the relator plaintiff in error. Accordingly, this writ of error must be dismissed. Broward v. Duval Athletic Club, 39 Fla. 751, 23 South. Rep. 489.
The writ of error will be dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friends OF THE Everglades, Inc. v. S. Fla. Reg'l Planning Council & City Nat'l Bank of Miami, 447 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…s favor, the appellant would be afforded no relief. Accordingly, since no practical purpose will be served by a decision, the appeal must be dismissed as moot. See DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1953); Alabama Coal Company v. Bowden, 44 Fla. 163, 31 So. 820 (1902); Halloran v. Pensacola Association of Life Underwriters, Inc., 395 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Newell’s Incorporated, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); In re Estate of Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (…
-
Wells v. Cochrane, 137 Fla. 241 (Fla. 1939)…at the election was held on November 8, 1938 and the court’s order refusing to restrain the holding of the election is now moot as the time therefor elapsed. See City of St. Petersburg v. Clark, 127 Fla. 232, 166 So. 563; Alabama Coal Co. v. Bowden, 44 Fla. 163, 31 So. 820; Tyler v. Peacock, 98 Fla. 981, 124 So. 463; Hogan v. State, ex rel. Williams, 86 Fla. 361, 98 So. 70; Yent v. State, ex rel. Richardson, 66 Fla. 336, 63 So. 452; McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681; Du-Bose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 99…
Authorities Cited
- Napoleon B. Broward v. Bowden, 39 Fla. 751 (Fla. 1897)