WILLIAM N. CAMP AND EUGENE E. WEST, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM S. JENNINGS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; JOHN L. CRAWFORD, SECRETARY OF STATE; WILLIAM B. LAMAR, ATTORNEY-GENERAL; JAMES B. WHITFIELD, TREASURER; WILLIAM H. REYNOLDS, COMPTROLLER; WILLIAM N. SHEATS, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION; AND B. E. MCLIN, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, COMPOSING THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF STATE INSTITUTIONS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND B. E. MCLIN, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANTS 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.
William Camp and Eugene West sought a writ of mandamus against Florida state officials regarding an alleged contract with the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because two companion cases decided the same day determined that no valid contract existed, making any relief unavailable to the plaintiffs.
The writ of error was dismissed because the plaintiffs could obtain no benefit from it, given that two companion cases decided on substantially the same facts had already determined that the alleged contract had no existence as a valid contract.
“two cases this-day decided between the plaintiffs in error and B. E. McLin, as Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida, determined upon substantially the same state of facts ¡shown by the record in 'this, adjudicate that the alleged contract, .recognition of which was sought in this proceeding, had no existence as a contract.”
The court's basis for dismissal—companion cases decided the same day established the contract was invalid
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 18, 1901, a writ of error was issued to review a circuit court judgment from May 31, 1901, that had denied plaintiffs' application for an …
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 Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause lias been referred by the court to its commissioners who report that the writ of error ought to be dismissed, and the court having duly considered the matter is of the same opinion.
On November 18th, 1901, a writ of error was issued from this court in the above stated cause, directed to the Circuit Court of Leon county, to review a judgment therein rendered on May 31st, 1901, denying an application of plaintiffs in error, 'as relators, for an alternative writ .of mandamus against defendants in error, and dismissing their petition therefor. The alternative writ was denied, and the respondents never became parties to the suit in the court below. They have not appeared in this court and there has been no service upon them of any scire facias ad audimdum errores, but the writ of error as issued by this court appears to have been duly recorded in the minutes of the Circuit Court as provided by Chapter 4529, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1897.. Whether the provisions of that act were intended to apply to a case where no service is had upon parties in the court below, and if so, whether this court could thus be constitutionally invested with jurisdiction of such parties, or whether notice in such a case is necessary at; all, are questions that would require some consideration, and which it would be fruitless to consider in view of the fact that two cases this-day decided between the plaintiffs in error and B.
E. Mc-Lin, as Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida, determined upon substantially the same state of facts ¡shown by the record in 'this, adjudicate that the alleged contract, .recognition of which was sought in this proceeding, had no existence as a contract. That being true, the plaintiffs in error could obtain no benefit on this writ of error, and it is, accordingly, dismissed without passing on the question whether or not the proceedings had were sufficient to invest this court with jurisdiction of the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. The Bd. of Equalizers of the State of Fla., 84 Fla. 592 (Fla. 1922)…Law (2nd Ed.) 1015; 6 R. C. L. 15L In State ex rel. Kittel v. Jennings, 47 Fla. 307, 35 South. Rep. 986, the decision was in favor of the Governor and others as Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund in a mandamus ease. See also Camp v. Jennings, 44 Fla. 533; 83 Fla. 344. [*613] The duties prescribed by Chapter 8584 are public executive or administrative functions involving discretion and are not those “of a mere trustee of a fund or property, or a director or corporator in the execution of a franchise…