FRANK M. TYLER
v.
ELWYN THOMAS, JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, ET AL.
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.
Frank M. Tyler, a retiring tax collector, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Circuit Court Judge Elwyn Thomas from interfering with a prior court order that entitled Tyler to commissions on redeemed tax sale certificates. The Florida Supreme Court held that the prior judgment in Lee v. Smith was conclusive on the matter and could not be collaterally attacked, making the writ of prohibition permanent.
The Court held that the question of entitlement to the commissions was conclusively settled in Lee v. Smith in Tyler's favor. The change in the disbursing medium from the Comptroller to Circuit Court Clerks did not affect the judgment. Judge Thomas's temporary restraining order violated the prior judgment and the writ of prohibition should be made permanent.
“This was the sole question adjudicated in Lee v. Smith, et al., supra, and it was there held that the petitioner was entitled to said commissions. The fact that the court was equally divided is not material and in no wise affects the judgment entered. The decision of the chancellor below conclusively settled that question and the decision of this Court affirmed his decree and thereby determined the law of the case.”
Establishes that the prior judgment conclusively determined Tyler's entitlement and is binding on all subsequent proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTyler was a retiring tax collector of St. Lucie County. In Lee v. Smith, the Circuit Court enjoined the Comptroller from paying tax redemption commiss…
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 Motion To Intervene cases and more on FLexlaw
— June 15, 1933, this Court by equal division affirmed an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court of Leon County in the case of J. M. Lee, as Comptroller, v. I. W. Smith and sixteen others as tax collectors of certain counties in this State, including the petitioner, Frank M. Tyler. The order of the Circuit Court so affirmed overruled a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint therein and restrained the Comptroller from paying to others than appellees as claimants certain funds held by him in which said claimants asserted a vested right by virtue of their office. The funds brought in question in that suit being those paid to the Comptroller as required to be distributed by him *369pursuant to Section 780, Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 1004 Compiled General Laws of 1927, for the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932.
Pending the disposition of the foregoing cause Section 780 Revised General Statutes of 1920, supra, was amended by Chapter 15918, Acts of 1933, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1933. The effect of this amendment was to relieve the Comptroller of the duty of receiving and disbursing the funds lodged with him under the Act as aforesaid among the tax collectors and to require that said duty be performed by the Clerks of the Circuit Court of the counties affected.
On July 29, 1933, petitioner as complainant in Lee v. Smith, supra, filed his supplemental bill in the Circuit Court of Leon County, praying that the injunctional order affirmed by this Court in said cause be made applicable to and binding on the clerks of the circuit court in all counties named therein, including their successors in office. The prayer of said supplemental bill having been granted a copy of the order therein was served on W. R. Lott as Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County on July 31, 1933, the effect of which was to permanently enjoin him from paying over funds held by him under the amended Act of 1933 to anyone other than petitioner.
Notwithstanding the last named order which was brought to the attention of the respondent as Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, he granted a temporary restraining order August 2, 1933, directed to the said W. R. Lott restraining him from paying said fund or commissions to petitioner as the retiring or former tax collector of St. Lucie County or to any other than Orris Nobles as the incoming or present tax collector of said county. Petitioner thereupon moved to intervene for the purpose of showing that the subject matter of the last mentioned cause of action *370was adjudicated in Lee v. Smith, et al., supra, in favor of petitioner. This motion to intervene was taken under advisement and on September 2, 1933, Orris Nobles filed a second application to restrain W. R. Lott from paying any commissions to petitioner during the month of August, 1933. The latter application was taken under advisement but pending its disposition petitioner applied for and secured the instant writ of prohibition herein.
The real question with which we are confronted here is resolved by a determination of whether the petitioner, Frank M. Tyler, the retiring tax collector, or Orris Nobles, the incoming tax collector of St. Lucie County, is entitled to receive the commissions paid on the redemption of tax sale certificates for the sales of 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932, said redemptions having been made subsequent to January 1, 1933.
This was the sole question adjudicated in Lee v. Smith, et al., supra, and it was there held that the petitioner was entitled to said commissions. The fact that the court was equally divided is not material and in no wise affects the judgment entered. The decision of the chancellor below conclusively settled that question and the decision of this Court affirmed his decree and thereby determined the law of the case.
The filing of the supplemental bill July 29, 1933, for the purpose of binding all clerks of the circuit court similarly situated thereby was not a new and different proceeding but was merely a step in the original cause for the purposes stated. All the clerks of the circuit court affected were on notice of the supplemental bill and its purpose and any resistance they desired to offer thereto should have been offered at that time in the court where filed. All parties affected were bound by the judgment and cannot now be *371heard in a new suit to resist it. Crandall’s Common Law Procedure 643, 34 Corpus Juris 999, Section 72, 1931 Chancery Act.
The judgment and order of the Court is' not affected by. Chapter 15918, Acts of 1933, Laws of Florida, as that Act did nothing but change the medium through which the funds or commissions should be disbursed.
The writ of prohibition should be and is hereby made permanent.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., dissent.
(dissenting). — My view is that writ of prohibition was not the proper remedy.
Ellis, J., concurs.
Brown, J.
(dissenting). — My view is that writ of prohibition was not the proper remedy.
Ellis, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Honorable David Sholtz, 123 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1936)…to him, for' [*112] the use and benefit of his predecessor, Tyler, and was subject to judgment for that sum in Tyler’s behalf in the suit brought against him to enforce such payment. See: Lee v. Smith, 111 Fla. 91, 149 Sou. Rep. 67; Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. Rep. 848; Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 Sou. Rep. 283. The law is clear that Orris Nobles, as Tyler’s successor in office, received the commissions in question from the Clerk , of the Circuit Court by virtue and under color of his of…
-
Tyler v. Orris Nobles, 117 Fla. 328 (Fla. 1934)…declaration, answered this question in the negative. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant and this writ of error is from the final judgment. The question raised here was conclusively settled by this Court in Tyler v. Thomas, et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. [*329] 848. We do not see that we can add to what we said in that case, so the judgment below is reversed on authority of Tyler v. Thomas, et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. 848. See also Lee v. Smith, et al., 111 Fla. 91, 149 So. 67, and Gay…1 / 2
-
State v. Caruthers, 131 Fla. 840 (Fla. 1938)…said county, and that being so, he is entitled to be paid the five per cent, commission on all amounts received for certificates redeemed in the manner stated. He relies on Lee v. Smith, [*842] 111 Fla. 91, 149 So. 67, reaffirmed in Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848; Gay v. State, 115 Fla. 584, 155 So. 845; and Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 117 So. 891, to support his contention. Lee v. Smith, was brought by tax collectors in some of the smaller counties to recover fees under facts and circumstan…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence