STATE, EX REL. M. S. PALMER,
v.
HARRY R. HEWITT, COUNTY JUDGE, AND JANET WATERMAN
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.
In this second appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a prohibition proceeding brought by Palmer against County Judge Hewitt and Janet Waterman. The Court held that even where a trial court may permit amendments to pleadings after reversal on appeal, amendments that fail to state a valid cause of action within the scope of the appellate court's prior decision may be properly rejected.
The Court held that while a trial court has discretion to permit appropriate amendments after reversal on appeal so long as the nature and theory of the case is not entirely changed, amendments that are insufficient to state a valid cause of action within the law of the case as previously decided by the appellate court may be properly rejected. Additionally, a directed verdict error in a County Court proceeding cannot be reached through a prohibition proceeding but must be challenged by appeal from the County Court's judgment.
“It is within the province of the Circuit Court when its judgment in favor of a plaintiff has been reversed with directions to have such further proceedings as may be in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court, to permit, in its sound discretion, appropriate amendments to plaintiff's pleadings designed to more clearly develop the real controversy between the parties, so long as the nature and the theory of the plaintiff's case as presented to the Supreme Court in the first instance, is not entirely changed or abandoned.”
Establishes the principle that trial courts have discretion to permit amendments after reversal, but only within defined limits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalmer brought a prohibition proceeding against County Judge Hewitt and Janet Waterman involving a dispute over forcible entry and unlawful detainer o…
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 Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this controversy in this' Court. See Hewitt v. State, ex rel. Palmer, 108 Fla. 335, 146 Sou. Rep. 578. Upon the going down of the mandate after the case had been decided here on the former writ of error, plaintiff in the prohibition proceeding applied for leave to amend his suggestion so as' to present additional matters intended to meet the. legal insufficiencies found in plaintiff’s case on the first appeal.
After a full hearing on the motion to file amended pleadings the Court denied the motion and entered a final judgment dismissing the suit. From the latter judgment was prosecuted this second writ of error.
It is within the province of the Circuit Court when its judgment in favor of a plaintiff has been reversed with directions to have such further proceedings as may be in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court, to per*142mit, in its sound discretion, appropriate amendments to plaintiff’s pleadings designed to more clearly develop the real controversy between the parties, so long as .the nature and the theory of the plaintiff’s case as presented to the Supreme Court in the first instance, is not entirely changed or abandoned. See Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 Sou. Rep. 792.
But where proposed amendments are insufficient to make out a cause of action within the law of the case as theretofore decided by the appellate court, the Circuit Court will not be held in error in refusing to permit such amendments to be filed.
The rejected amended pleading tendered by plaintiff was insufficient to make out a case warranting a writ of prohibition absolute if its filing had been permitted, because the record of the proceedings before the County Judge clearly shows that a bona fide issue of forcible entry and unlawful detainer of lands was the real matter put in controversy by plaintiff’s suit in the County Court. So no error was committed by the Circuit Court in refusing to permit the amended suggestion to be filed.
If the County Judge committed reversible error in directing a verdict when he should have permitted the case to go to the jury on the controverted fact of plaintiff’s alleged abandonment prior to defendant’s alleged entry, an appropriate remedy therefor exists by appeal from the County Court’s judgment rendered on the directed verdict. But such an error (if it was committed) cannot be reached by a proceeding in prohibition, however clear the error might be made to appear in the County Court’s proceedings.
Judgment affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Teebell, Beown and Bufoed, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Land Bank of Columbia v. Brooks, 139 Fla. 506 (Fla. 1939)…and decided. Palm Beach Estates v. Crocker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792. Nor may an amended bill state a new and different cause of action. Palm Beach Estates v. Crocker, supra; Gugenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 So. 801; State v. Hewitt, 116 Fla. 140, 156 So. 236. However, the lower court does have the authority and should in its sound discretion permit either' party to' amend their pleadings after the case has been remanded by the Supreme Court so'long as such amendments do not set up a new cau…
-
Fla. AIR Conditioners, Inc. v. Colonial Supply Co., 390 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…a.Stat., there may be other statutory bases for personal liability under the circumstances of this case. See § 608.59, Fla. Stat. (1973) and Rosenberg v. Ryder Leasing, Inc., 168 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964). . See State ex rel. Palmer v. Hewitt, 116 Fla. 140, 156 So. 236 (Fla.1934). . See St. Joe Paper Co. v. Connell, 299 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). . Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 285 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Palm Beach Ests. v. Bula E. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1932)
- Hewitt v. State, 108 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1933)