STATE, EX REL. EMMET A. CURTIS, ET UX.,
v.
I. I. HIMES, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a mandamus action seeking to compel payment of a condemnation judgment where the statutory payment deadline had passed and the county commissioners abandoned the condemnation proceedings. The judgment became null and void upon expiration of the statutory period.
Petitioners were not entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus because the condemnation judgment became null and void upon expiration of the statutory payment period, leaving nothing upon which to base the mandamus action. However, the owners retained a right of action against the county to recover the value of the small portion of land actually occupied by the road.
“the proceedings and the judgment became null and void at the expiration of the period described.”
Establishes the core holding that failure to pay within the statutory period rendered the judgment void
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners obtained a $3,963.00 judgment in condemnation proceedings on August 29, 1928. The County Commissioners of Palm Beach County did not pay th…
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 Peremptory Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs in error instituted proceedings in mandamus in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County to coerce the payment of judgment of $3,963.00 in favor of petitioners in condemnation proceedings. The judgment was entered on the 29th day of August, 1928.
The record shows that the petitioners in the condemnation proceedings did not pay the amount of the judgment *429within the period required by the statute. See Section 1512 R. G. S., 2290 C. G. L. Therefore, the proceedings and the judgment became null and void at the expiration of the period described.
The respondent County Commissioners answered setting up the fact that the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County did not pay the judgment as provided by the statute above referred to; that there was no money in the hands of the Gounty Commissioners available for the payment of such judgment and that the Board of' County Commissioners in constructing the road or part of road for which the lands were sought to be condemned determined not to use the said lands because it was deemed that 'the judgment for compensation for such lands was excessive and that the Board of County Commissioners had not taken or used the said lands.
On final hearing the court entered its judgment in favor of the respondents and against the relators.
The _ record shows that a very small part of the land sought to have been condemned amounting to twenty-seven one-thousandths part of an acre of such land was encroached upon by the part of the road which was constructed and is now occupied by the county as a part of the road. The owners have their right of action against the county to recover the value of this portion of the land. But, the record shows conclusively that they were not entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus to coerce the payment of the amount of the judgment. See Fla. Central & Penn. R. R. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla. 319, 31 Sou. 287, in which this Court in construing a like statute as that which is here under consideration held that upon the abandonment of the proceedings by the petitioner in condemnation matters, the compensation found not having been paid into court as required, the en*430tire judgment and proceedings in which it was rendered become inoperative, null and void. This being true, it follows that there was nothing upon which to base a peremptory writ of mandamus.
The judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Wi-iiteield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Davis, J., concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. Gen. Waterworks Corp., 267 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1972)…me before it pays or secures the compensation of the landowner, and the statute expressly makes the failure to pay into court an abandonment of the proceedings, and declares them null and void.” See also State ex rel. Curtis v. Himes, 119 Fla. 428, 161 So. 560 (1935). In light of the fact that all element domain proceedings are subject to the express conditions of Fla.Stat. § 73.111, F.S.A., we conclude that it was not improper for Dade County to recognize the possibility of later abandonment in its autho…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 233 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…e entire judgment and proceedings become null and void upon the failure of the condemnor to deposit the money found due by the judgment into the registry of the court within the time fixed by statute. See State ex rel. Curtis v. Himes, 119 Fla. 428, 161 So. 560 (1935); Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla. 319, 31 So. 287 (1901); Cf. State Road Department of Florida v. Zetrouer, 105 Fla. 650, 142 So. 217 (1932). We are concerned with a statute and cases, albeit old, that have seemed to permit a conde…
Authorities Cited
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla. 319 (Fla. 1901)