STATE OF FLORIDA ON THE RELATION OF WAILES
v.
CROOM, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Florida sought mandamus against the state comptroller to compel performance of an official duty, but the Florida Supreme Court denied the writ in January 1912. When the United States Supreme Court received the writ of error in April 1912, it learned that the original comptroller defendant had died in February 1912 and been succeeded by a new comptroller. The Court dismissed the writ of error as improvidently issued because the change in the comptroller's office made the proceeding against the original defendant moot.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by
Mr. Chief Justice White.
This is an action in mandamus. The party proceeded against in the state court was A. C. Croom, sued in his official character as comptroller of the State of Florida. On January 16, 1912, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a judgment denying the writ. On April 11, 1912, this writ of error was sued out by the relator below, and Croom, comptroller, was named as defendant in error. Citation was served by delivering a copy to the Attorney General of the State of Florida. • The attorneys who represented the defendant in the state courts, acting as friends of the court, have placed upon the files evidence establishing that A. C. Croom died on February 7, 1912, and that William V. Knott was thereafter appointed and duly qualified as comptroller of the State of Florida, and has been acting as such since February 17, 1912. Under the circumstances thus detailed it results that the writ of error was improvidently sued out, and it must therefore be dismissed.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Preston, 280 U.S. 406 (U.S. 1930)…successor, Mellon. Therefore Davis was not then in a position to complain of the judgment or to invoke a review of it by this Court. All right and discretion to do either had passed to his successor in office. Florida ex [*408] rel. Wailes v. Croom, 226 U. S. 309; Taylor v. Savage, 1 How. 282, 286; Dolan v. Jennings, 139 U. S. 385, 387; McClane v. Boon, 6 Wall. 244. It follows that the writ of certiorari granted on the petition of Davis was improvidently allowed and must be dismissed. The fact that the sure…