J. L. PAXON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
D. W. MORAN, SHERIFF, 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.
This case concerns the validity of an arrest warrant served in a county different from where it was issued. The Florida Supreme Court held that a warrant, initially invalid for service in another county due to lack of endorsement, became valid after being properly endorsed, allowing for a subsequent lawful arrest.
Yes, the second arrest was legal. The due endorsement of the warrant by a proper officer of Dade County gave it validity for service in that county, rendering the subsequent arrest lawful.
“As the due endorsement of the warrant by a proper officer of Dade County gave validity to the warrant for service in that county, the second arrest was not illegal, even though a previous arrest had been made on the warrant which was then not valid for an arrest in Dade County.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for upholding the second arrest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA criminal arrest warrant issued in Taylor County was served in Dade County without the required endorsement by a Dade County judge or justice of the …
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 Res Judicata cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
It appears that a warrant of arrest on a criminal charge was issued in Taylor County and served in Dade County without being “endorsed by some judge or justice of the peace living in” Dadé County as required by Section 3928, General Statutes, 1906, Florida Compiled Laws, 1914, as a prerequisite to its validity for service in another county. The defendant was discharged on habeas corpus. Immediatey on such discharge the defendant was again arrested on the warrant, it having-then been duly endorsed in Dade County subsequent to the first arrest and prior to the discharge of the petitioner on the first habeas corpus writ. On another proceeding on habeas corpus the petitioner was remanded and was allowed a writ of error. As the due endorsement of the warrant by a proper officer of Dade County gave validity to the warrant for service in that county, the second arrest was not illegal, even though a previous arrest had been made on the warrant which was then not valid for an arrest in Dade County. The discharge of the petitioner was res adjudicata, as to the validity of the writ for service in Dade County before its proper endorsement; but having been made valid for an arrest in Dade County by the official endorsement in that county, the writ was then effective, though it had been held ineffective before the endorsement. For purposes of an arrest in Dade County the warrant was not identical in legal effect before and after its endorsement. Judgment affirmed.
Eroavne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Lindsey, 89 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1925)…st at the time when the first discharge was granted. This question was raised in Ex Parte Powell, 20 Fla. 806, but was not passed upon, because the cause of the first arrest was not shown. The question was next before this court in Paxon v. Moran, 76 Fla. 463, 80 South. Rep. 313, where it was said: “The discharge of the petitioner was res adjudicata as to the validity of the writ for service in Dade County before its proper endorsement; but having been made valid for an arrest in Dade County by the offic…
-
Jackson Gray v. Leon Cnty., 96 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1928)…, of Florida. The defendant contends that without this endorsement plaintiff can not recover anything for his fees. Judgment on the pleadings was entered for defendant. The lack of endorsement pertains to the validity of the arrest. Paxon v. Moran, 76 Fla. 463, 80 So. R. 313. It does not affect the right of the constable to receive his fees. The executive officer of the court, having fully performed his duty, was entitled to compensation as provided by law. Reversed. Per Curiam. — The record in this cau…