THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. JOHN D. HARRIS, RELATOR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. W. WIECKING, RESPONDENT, 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 held that a person compiling real property abstracts has a statutory right to inspect and extract information from instruments filed for record but not yet spread upon the record books, based on the principle that such instruments become part of the public records upon filing.
The relator has a statutory right to inspect and make extracts from instruments filed for record but not yet spread upon the records. Under Florida statute, instruments become part of the public records from the moment they are filed with the Clerk, and thus are open to public inspection and extraction just as though they were already recorded in the official record books.
“the public generally, including any persons or firm who may be engaged in the enterprise of compiling a complete set of abstract books of the titles to all the real estate in a County, have the continuous right at all reasonable hours and times, by themselves or their agents, to inspect and make extracts from any and all of the public records in the offices of Clerks of the Circuit Courts”
Establishes the broad public right to inspect and extract from public records, including for those in the abstract compilation business
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn D. Harris, engaged in the business of compiling abstracts of real estate titles in Pinellas County, sought to inspect and make extracts from inst…
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 Mandamus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The Circuit Court refused a mandamus to compel the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County “to forthwith permit the relator John D. Harris or his agents, under the Clerk’s supervision, to inspect and make abstracts from all instruments relating to real property which are authorized or required to be recorded and which have been filed with the Clerk for record, but which have not actually been spread upon the records in his office.” There was final judgment for the respondent, and the relator brings the case here for review by writ of error. It is shown that the relator is engaged in the business of compiling abstracts of the title to all the real estate in the County, and desires to take extracts from instruments filed for record, but not actually recorded, to be used as parts of his abstracts. In the case of State ex rel. Davis v. McMillan, 49 Fla. 243, 38 South. Rep. 666, it was held that under the provisions of our statutes the public generally, including any persons or firm who may be engaged in the enterprise of compiling a complete set of abstract books of the titles to all the real estate in a County, have the continuous right at all reasonable hours and times, by themselves or their agents, to inspect and make extracts from any and all of the public records in the offices of Clerks of the Circuit Courts. Some question is made in the instant case, that the decision in the case just above cited does not cover or include instruments affecting the title to realty that haye simply been filed for record but not yet actually spread upon the records. There is no merit in this contention.
Section 2488, General Statutes of 1906, provides that: “all instruments relating to real and personal property which are authorized or required to be recorded, shall be deemed to be recorded from the time the same are filed with the officer whose duty it is to record the same.” If then, under the last quoted statute, an' instrument becomes a part of the public records from the time it is filed with the Clerk for record, it, from that time, becomes open to the public for inspection and to take extracts from, just as much so as though it were spread at length upon the record books kept by such Clerk.
The court below erred in refusing to the relator the relief sought by his writ of mandamus and the judgment in said cause is hereby reversed at the cost of respondent.
Shackleford, 'C. J., and Cockrell, LIocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Webb Furniture Co., Inc. v. Everett, 105 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1932)…ate, when the entire decree is reversed the case stands as if there had been no decree. Phifer vs. Abbott, 73 Fla. 402, 74 So. 488; Peacock vs. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 73 Fla. 1207, 75 So. 799; South Florida Lumber & Supply Co. vs. Read, 65 Fla. 61, 61 So. 125; Florida East Coast R. Co. vs. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582, 64 So. 238. [*295] To support Ms contention defendant in error relies on Section 2921 Revised General Statutes of 1920 (Section 4640 Compiled General Laws of 1927) which in effect provides that an…
-
Ex Parte: Archibald Livingston, 116 Fla. 640 (Fla. 1934)…t cannot be known that there will be a trial by jury. See 27 R. C. L. 825. The reversal of the judgment nullified it completely. It left the case standing as if the judgment had not been rendered. South Fla. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Read, 65 Fla. 61, 61 South. Rep. 125; Camp v. First Nat. Bank of Ocala, 44 Fla. 497, 33 South. Rep. 241; 4 C. J. 1204; Capital City [*654] Bank v. Hilson, 64 Fla. 206, 60 South. Rep. 189; 11 Ency. P. & Prac. 1076. The judgment of reversal rested upon the error committed in disposing o…
-
Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 172 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ersed. This order which was reversed cannot have the effect ascribed to it by the trial judge because an order which is reversed must be treated as though the order had never been rendered. See: South Florida Lumber & Supply Co. v. Read, 65 Fla. 61, 61 So. 125 (1913); Marshall & Spencer Co. v. People’s Bank of Jacksonville, 88 Fla. 190, 101 So. 358 (1924); Webb Furniture Co. v. Everett, 105 Fla. 292, 141 So. 115 (1932). In addition, the opinion of this court cited above, which must be presumed to have est…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. McMillan, 49 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1905)