WALTER RAY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAMS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, AND JOHN TRICE AS RECEIVER OF THE ST. PETERSBURG STATE BANK, APPELLEES
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.
Ray sought to cancel a foreclosure deed on property in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, arguing that a Sixth Circuit judge lacked jurisdiction because the foreclosure proceedings were based on a collusive mortgage and Ray's property was outside that circuit. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that the Sixth Circuit judge had jurisdiction on the face of the record and Ray should have raised his objections in that original forum.
The court held that the Sixth Circuit judge had jurisdiction on the face of the record to enter the foreclosure decree, and Ray's proper remedy was to have applied for relief in that original forum when he had actual knowledge of the proceedings. One court of equity cannot enjoin a party from proceeding in another court of equity of equal coordinate and prior jurisdiction merely for reasons of physical convenience.
“the first acquiring jurisdiction of the subject-matter is permitted to retain it to the end and there is not sufficient showing here to justify an exception to that rule”
Establishes the governing principle that courts of coordinate power follow: the court first acquiring jurisdiction retains it absent exceptional circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1895, the Globe Phosphate Company mortgaged property to the St. Petersburg State Bank as trustee, with a final foreclosure decree entered in 1902 b…
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 Cancellation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Upon the return of this case, 55 Fla. 723, 46 South. Rep. 158, the bill was amended and a demurrer thereto sustained, from which this appeal is taken.
The bill as now before us prays the Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit to cancel a deed of sale made and confirmed under a decree of foreclosure and sale rendered by the Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, because of fraud upon the latter’s jurisdiction; it is alleged that a bill of complaint was filed in 1895 in Pasco County within the Sixth Circuit to enforce a mortgage lien given by the Globe Phosphate Company to the St. Petersburg State Bank as Trustee, upon which a final decree was entered in 1902; that Ray purchased the lands named in the mortgage taking possession in 1901, without actual or constructive knowledge of the foreclosure proceedings, and was not made a party thereto; that the mortgage was collusive and void by reason of certain acts of one Bishop who was president of the phosphate company and the bank; that all the lands named in the mortgage lie in the Fifth Circuit, but that to confer ostensible jurisdiction on the Judge of the Sixth Circuit advantage was taken of a provision in the mortgage covering after acquired property in that Bishop out of his personal funds procured a conveyance of a half interest in a small tract of land in Pasco county to the corporation mortgagor. Exactly when Ray learned of the proceedings is not shown, but it does appear that he knew of them before the sale took place and notified Trice of his adverse holding. No attempts were had in that suit to stop the sale or to show fraud in fact upon the court’s jurisdiction; it cannot now in view of the admitted facts be argued that upon the face of the record the Judge of the Sixth Circuit had not jurisdiction to enter the decree that was entered and with the actual knowledge then possessed by Ray, he should have applied to that forum for relief.
We need not now concern ourselves with the TÁs pendes statute. As incidental to the prayer that the master’s deed be declared null and void, the bill alleges an abortive attempt to sue out a writ of assistance and a fear thaU other attempt will be made. This is not a case where a court of equity is asked to enjoin an action at law, but where one court of equity is asked in effect to enjoin a party from proceeding in another court of equity of equal coordinate and prior jurisdiction, merely because of physical convenience.
The general rule is, as between courts of co-ordinate power, the first acquiring jurisdiction of the subject-matter is permitted to retain it to the end and there is not sufficient showing here to justify an exception to that rule.
The order is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Hooker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur;
Si-iackleford, J., disqualified.
Petition for rehearing in this case denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund OF the State of Fla. v. Mobil OIL Corp., 455 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ule was applied, the court which first tried to exercise jurisdiction had subject matter jurisdiction. See Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Lake Street Elevated Railroad Co., 177 U.S. 51, 20 S.Ct. 564, 44 L.Ed. 667 (1900); Ray v. Williams Phosphate Co., 59 Fla. 598, 52 So. 589 (1910); DiProspero; Blake v. Blake, 172 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Where the cause of action is in rem, as is the case regarding Mobil’s reply counterclaim,3 the court involved has subject matter jurisdiction only if it has 1) jurisdi…
-
Virginia-Carolina Chem. Corp. v. Smith, 121 Fla. 720 (Fla. 1935)…which petition the correctness of our opinion and judgment entered herein on October 15th, 1935, is challenged. It is contended in the petition that we overlooked the decision and opinion of this Court in the case of Ray v. Williams Phosphate Co., 59 Fla. 598, 52 Sou. 589. That opinion and judgment was not overlooked. The factual conditions are different in the case now before us to those which existed in that case. That was a chancery suit instituted to procure an adjudication that a certain final decre…
-
Maddox Grocery Co. v. Hay, 87 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1924)…n County, Florida. ’ ’ It is a familiar principle, that as betwéen courts of coordinate jurisdiction, the one 'first acquiring' jurisdiction of the subject-matter' should, as a general rule, be permitted to retain it. Ray v. Williams Phosphate Co., 59 Fla. 598, 52 South. Rep. 589. And a court which has in its rightful possession or under its control property involved in litigation may exercisé jurisdiction over such property to the exclusion of all other courts, and another court of concurrent jurisdictio…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723 (Fla. 1908)