STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. MARY B. JEWETT AND LILLIAN N. INMAN, AS EXECUTRICES OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF FLORENCE E. INMAN, DECEASED, RELATOR,
v.
F. M. ROBLES, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1918-06-01
Browne, C. J., and Whitfield,. Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
75 Fla. 790 Florida Supreme Court (1918) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court prohibited a circuit judge from proceeding with a separate action against executrices of a deceased defendant that was carved out of an original joint action in assumpsit. The court held that the judge lacked statutory authority to revive a joint action against executors of a deceased joint defendant.


Holding

The circuit judge lacked jurisdiction and statutory power to enter the orders separating the joint action and proceeding against the executrices as defendants in a separate action, and he is hereby prohibited from doing so.


Key Quotes

“The orders complained of is virtually a revivor of a joint action at law against three joint defendants against the executors of one of such defendants deceased. This proceeding is not warranted by our statutes and the Circuit Judge had no jurisdiction or power to enter them”

Establishes the court's holding that the judge lacked statutory authority to separate and revive the joint action against the executrices

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Louis Brill filed a joint action in assumpsit in circuit court against Eugene Holtsinger, Florence E. Inman, and Swann & Holtsinger Company on a joint…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Taylor, J.

Taylor, J.

This original cause in this court came on to be heard upon demurrer of the respondent to the petition and suggestion for the writ of prohibition against the respondent Judge, to-prohibit him as such judge from proceeding further in a so-called separate action carved out of an original action at law in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County against the relators as executrices of Florence, E. Inman, deceased. By the allegations of the petition and suggestion for the writ of prohibition, that are admitted to be true by the demurrer, it appears that one Louis Brill, as plaintiff, instituted his original joint action at law in assumpsit in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County upon a joint promissory note against Eugene Holtsinger, Florence E. Inman (then living) and Swann & Holtsinger' Company, et al.; that after she had appeared in said suit the defendant therein, Florence E. Inman, departed this life testate appointing the relators herein as the executrices of her will. That thereupon at the suggestion and on the motion of the plaintiff in said suit the respondent Judge made an order in said canse to the effect that the said cause be separated and should continue as tAVO separate actions, the one against the surviving defendants and the other 'against the relators herein as executrices of the deceased defendant Florence E. Inman, and required the said relators, as said executrices, to appear and show cause why said action should not be separated and proceeded in against them as such executrices and why they should hot appear and plead to the original declaration filed in said separated cause. The respondent Judge subsequently made this rule abso: lute and required the relators as such executrices to appear and plead to the original declaration, as the dec laration in such separate suit against them. The demurrer to the suggestion for the writ of Prohibition presents the question of the jurisdiction and power of the Circuit Judge to make the orders complained of.

The orders complained of is virtually a revivor of a joint action at law against three joint defendants against tbe executors: of one of such defendants deceased. This proceeding is not warranted by our statutes and the Circuit Judge had no jurisdiction or power to enter them, and he is hereby prohibited from proceeding further in such separate action against said relators herein and from making any other orders or judgments therein.

The demurrer to the petition and suggestion is overruled and the peremptory writ of Prohibition is hereby ordered as herein provided, at the cost of the State of Florida.

Browne, C. J., and Whitfield,. Ellis and West, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Atkinson, 136 Fla. 528 (Fla. 1938)
    …1 Fla. 341, 163 Sou. 715; State, ex rel. Reynolds, Comptroller, et al., v. White, Judge, et al., 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160; State, ex rel. Gray, v. Davis, Circuit Judge, et al., 83 Fla. 422, 91 So. 267; State, ex rel. Jewett, et al., v. Robles, Judge, 75 Fla. 790, 78 So. 981; State, ex rel. Patterson, v. Lee, 121 Fla. 541, 164 So. 188 and State, ex rel. Burr, et al., v. Whitney, 66 Fla. 24, 63 So. 299. We cannot say that the authorities cited go far enough to sustain the Relator’s contention. The two suits a…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw