STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. WEST'S DRUG STORES, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
G. H. CORNELIUS, AS COUNTY JUDGE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND ALLEN INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
West's Drug Stores sought a supersedeas to stay execution of a final judgment denying its writ of prohibition against County Judge Cornelius. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the supersedeas, holding that a supersedeas can issue even to a final judgment denying a writ of prohibition absolute, and ordered procedures for assessing the adequacy of the bond protecting Allen Investment Company's rights.
A supersedeas can be granted to a final judgment denying a writ of prohibition absolute; the statutory supersedeas that issued when the rule nisi was applied for remains in full force and effect. The Circuit Court must assess whether the current bond is sufficient and may require additional bond or security as necessary.
“In this case a supersedeas was granted by order of the Circuit Judge after final judgment for respondents was entered in a prohibition proceedings had in the Circuit Court. The effect of the supersedeas under such circumstances is to hold in full force and effect the statutory supersedeas that went into operation when the rule to show cause in the prohibition case was ordered by the Circuit Court to issue to arrest the progress of the suit being heard by the County Judge when the rule nisi in prohibition was applied for.”
Establishes the court's holding that a supersedeas can issue to a final judgment denying prohibition by reinforcing the statutory supersedeas that automatically arose upon the rule nisi.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWest's Drug Stores obtained a rule nisi in prohibition proceedings before County Judge Cornelius, which created a statutory supersedeas. After the Cir…
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.
In this case a supersedeas was granted by order of the Circuit Judge after final judgment for respondents was entered in a prohibition proceedings had in the Circuit Court. The effect of the supersedeas under such circumstances is to hold in full force and effect the statutory supersedeas that went into operation when the rule to show cause in the prohibition case was ordered by the Circuit Court to issue to arrest the progress of the suit being heard by the County Judge when the rule nisi in prohibition was-applied for. See Section 3451 C. G. L., 3586 R. G. S.
The motion to vacate and set aside the supersedeas on the ground that a supersedeas cannot be had to a final judgment denying a writ of prohibition absolute is therefore denied.
• On the question of the sufficiency of the present bond to protect the rights of Allen Investment Company while the supersedeas is in force, should the judgment appealed from-be affirmed, leave is hereby given to the defendant in- error *511to proceed .before the Circuit Court in accordance with Stegemann v. Emery, 103 Fla. 735, 137 Sou. Rep. 888. In the event an additional bond or further security be required by the Circuit Judge to whom the matter is presented, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff in error shall make and file such bond within thirty days from the date of the order of the Circuit Judge, in default of which the supersedeas herein shall stand revoked and set aside upon the making and filing in this cause of a certificate of the Circuit Judge that this order has not been complied with. The procedure contemplated by this paragraph of this order shall be had before one of the Circuit Judges of Hillsborough County.
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacock v. Lon Miller, 123 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1936)…rohibition, but not on appeal from a judgment denying a writ of prohibition.” There was no error committed by this court in granting the supersedeas. Hughes v. Blanton, 120 Fla. 446, 162 Sou. 914. And in West’s Drug Store v. Cornelius, 108 Fla. 509, 146 So. 554, it was held, that the Circuit Court, which had issued the rule nisi in prohibition but had rendered a final judgment denying the writ absolute, could grant supersedeas pending writ of error to such final judgment, which supersedeas had the effect o…
-
Elvine v. Pub. Fin. Co., 196 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…the statute is to preserve to the unfortunate debtor and his family a means of living without becoming a charge upon the public. See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931); Farland Loan & Savings Co. v. Pittman, 108 Fla. 442, 146 So. 554 (1933); Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla. 1954, 76 So. 2d 792. Reversed and remanded with directions-to quash the writ of garnishment.…
-
Hughes v. The Honorable W. F. Blanton, 120 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1935)…otion by plaintiff in error to quash the order of the Circuit Judge granting supersedeas to his judgment was denied by this Court on the 19th day of June, 1935, on the authority of State, ex rel. West’s Drug Stores, Inc., v. Cornelius, 108 Fla. 509, 146 Sou. Rep. 554, but in consideration of the nature of the controversy involved, the Court has advanced the hearing of the appeal for an early, determination of its merits. The petition to the County Judge for inquisition of lunacy was in form and substance as fol…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Otto C. Stegemann v. Emery, 103 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1931)