THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. PAUL L. EDDY, ET AL, RELATORS,
v.
W. E. BELL, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1929-04-08
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur., Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
97 Fla. 501 Florida Supreme Court (1929)

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 dismissed a writ of mandamus because conflicting gubernatorial commissions for the same office created an unclear right to possession of office records, which mandamus cannot resolve.


Holding

No, mandamus cannot be invoked to control the possession of office records when conflicting claims of title to the office exist, as a clear right or duty cannot be established.


Key Quotes

“As the relator Eddy and the respondent each has a commission from the Governor to fill the same office for the same period of time, mandamus cannot be invoked to control the possession of the office records, since a clear right in the relator Eddy to have the records or a clear duty of the respondent Bell to deliver the records to Eddy, do not appear, and conflicting claims of title to the office cannot be adjudicated in mandamus.”

This quote explains why mandamus is inappropriate in cases of conflicting claims to office.

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

Relator Eddy, commissioned as successor to Respondent Bell, sought a writ of mandamus to obtain office records. Respondent's return questioned the val…

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
Per Curiam.

[*502] Per Curiam.

An alternative writ of mandamus was issued by this Court commanding the respondent to deliver up office records it appearing that realtor Eddy had been commissioned as respondent’s successor. A return in effect averred that the commission to relator Eddy was not founded on a certificate of election, and that the commission had been recalled by the Governor. This return was stricken and an application for a rehearing was filed. Pending its consideration the relator moved for a peremptory writ and the respondent presented an amended return showing that respondent has been commissioned by the Governor to the same office claimed by the relator Eddy. As the relator Eddy and the respondent each has a commission from the Governor to fill the same office for the same period of time, mandamus cannot be invoked to control the possession of the office records, since a clear right in the relator Eddy to have the records or a clear duty of the respondent Bell to deliver the records to Eddy, do not appear, and conflicting claims of title to the office cannot be adjudicated in mandamus. In this situation the alternative writ of -mandamus should be and it is hereby dismissed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw