THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. THE SANFORD HERALD, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
W. W. WRIGHT, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, AND GEORGE A. DECOTTES, DEFENDANTS
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 Sanford Herald sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a circuit court judge from proceeding with a libel suit after the plaintiff waived all damages except one cent, arguing the court lost jurisdiction when the claim amount fell below the circuit court's threshold. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition without prejudice, finding no prior jurisdictional challenge had been raised in the lower court.
The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of prohibition without prejudice, holding that the petition was premature because no jurisdictional challenge had been raised or decided in the lower court, and there was no showing the circuit court intended to take further action in the cause.
“The court having heretofore directed the jury in this cause to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, assessing his damages in such sum as they may determine from One Cent (lc) to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)”
Shows the court's initial instruction to the jury regarding the range of damages to be assessed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge A. DeCottes sued the Sanford Herald for libel, claiming $100,000 in damages. After the case was submitted to the jury, DeCottes filed a motion …
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 Waiver Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
This matter comes before the Court on original petition for writ of prohibition. George A. DeCottes brought suit in the Circuit Court against the Sanford Herald in an action for libel, claiming damages in the sum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,-000) Dollars.
The cause came on for trial and after the case had been submitted to the jury and the jury had retired to consider its verdict, a motion and waiver was filed by the plaintiff, in-words and figures as follows:
“The court having heretofore directed the jury in this cause to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, assessing his damages in such sum as they may determine from One Cent (lc) to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), and the jury having failed as yet to render a verdict as directed by the court, comes now the plaintiff herein and waives any and all damages of and from the defendant for the wrongs and injuries ’complained of in his declaration in this cause, except damages in the sum of One Cent (lc), and further moves the court to direct that a verdict be signed by one of the members of the jury as foreman in the following language to-wit
‘We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Geo. A. De-Cottes, and against the defendant, The Sanford Plerald, a corporation, and assess his damages in the sum of one cent, so say we all.
Foreman.’
Dated this 17th day of August, A. D. 1929.
Geo. A. DeCottes,
In propria persona
And, thereupon, the'following proceedings are shown by the record: "Comes now the plaintiff in his own proper person and moves the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff assessing damages in the sum of One Cent, which motion was denied by the court.
“Comes now the plaintiff by his attorney, Cary D. Landis, and moves the court for a directed verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of One Cent, files a waiver of all other damages except this sum, which motion.was denied by the court.
“The jury here entered open court and announced that they could not agree, whereupon the court declared a mistrial, and the jury was discharged .for. the term. ’ ’
It is the contention of the relator that the filing of the waiver of all damages in excess of One Cent has the effect of reducing the claim of damages sought to be recovered in this suit to the sum of One Cent and that, therefore, the Circuit Court is without jurisdiction of the cause.
There is nothing in the record presented, nor in the petition, to show that any application has been made or any pleadings filed in the lower court raising the question of jurisdiction, nor is there anything in the petition or the record before us to show that the Circuit Court intends to take any further cognizance of, or action in, this cause. Therefore, the petition for the writ of prohibition should be denied without prejudice and it is so ordered.
Denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, 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
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. Murphy, 132 Fla. 579 (Fla. 1938)…ee also Sherilock v. Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 93; State, ex rel. Rheinauer, v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 575; State, ex rel. Swearingen, v. R. R. Com., 57 Fla. 526, 49 So. 30; White v. State, ex rel. Alvarez, 77 Fla. 528, 81 So. 639; State v. Wright, 98 Fla. 461, 124 So. 18; Curtis v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853, 132 So. 677; State v. Freeland, 103 Fla. 663, 138 So. 27. Plaintiff in error contends that the trial court was acting without jurisdiction, and, as a further ground for the issuance of the writ of pro…
-
State v. Whitehurst, 122 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1936)…ion of the Court to proceed has been tendered to or ruled upon by the inferior court. State, ex rel. Anderson, v. Parks, 94 Fla. 91, 113 Sou. Rep. 702; State v. White, 40 Fla. 297, 24 Sou. Rep. 160. Compare: State, ex rel. Sanford Herald, v. Wright, 98 Fla. 461, 124 Sou. Rep. 18, and State, ex rel. Landis, v. Atkinson, 102 Fla. 1092, 136 Sou. Rep. 723. It is likewise subject to the rule that prevails in prohibition cases that if an application for prohibition be too broad, the Court will not for that reaso…
-
State v. Rowe, 104 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…ow that the contended want of jurisdiction was formally raised before the lower court as a predicate to the filing of the suggestion to prohibit the [*137] lower court’s action. See State v. Atkinson, 102 Fla. 1092, 136 So. 723, and State v. Wright, 98 Fla. 461, 124 So. 18. There are other cumulative reasons for holding the suggestion insufficient. In addition to a considerable number of differences in the complaints in the two suits, as discussed above, the parties in the two suits were different. In the…