GEORGE L. PEACOCK, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL. AMERICAN MORTGAGE AND FINANCE COMPANY
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 a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the City of South Miami to appropriate and pay funds to satisfy a prior judgment rendered against it. The Court rejected the city's appeal as frivolous, applying the rule that appeals lacking harmful errors warrant affirmance without docket retention.
Mandamus lies to compel a municipal corporation to appropriate and pay a valid judgment. The city's procedural objections were harmless and did not warrant reversal. The judgment granting the peremptory writ of mandamus was affirmed.
“That mandamus lies to compel a municipal corporation to make provision for paying judgments duly rendered against it scarcely admits of serious argument contra.”
Establishes that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to enforce a municipal corporation's duty to pay valid judgments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Mortgage and Finance Company obtained a judgment against the City of South Miami. That judgment was affirmed on appeal. The city failed to ma…
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 Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a mandamus proceeding brought in aid of a judgment at law recovered by the defendant in error against the City of South Miami, Florida. From the award of a peremptory writ of mandamus the city has sued out this writ of error. The case is now being considered by this Court on defendant in error’s motion to dismiss the appellate proceedings as frivolous and sued out merely for delay. Section 4639 C. G. L., 2920 R. G. S. Upon consideration of the motion we have concluded to apply the rule laid down in Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554, 158 Sou. Rep. 123, wherein it was held that where the transcript supports the judgment appealed from and no harmful errors appear, the Supreme Court, in disposing of a motion to dismiss an appeal as frivolous, will affirm the judgment without retaining the case on the docket for re-examination on its merits at a later date.
An inspection of the transcript and written arguments submitted in the briefs discloses that every material point in controversy between the parties has been heretofore adjudicated against the contentions of plaintiffs in error in the prior decisions of this Court in Duboise Const. Co. v. City of South Miami, 108 Fla. 362, 146 Sou. Rep. 833; City of South Miami v. Dubois Const. Co., 115 Fla. 619, 155 Sou. Rep. 795.
That mandamus lies to compel a municipal corporation to make provision for paying judgments duly rendered against it scarcely admits of serious argument contra. The record in this case shows that the judgment herein appealed *27from is from a final judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus to enforce the judgment heretofore rendered against the City of South Miami and thereafter duly affirmed by this Court. Errors, if any, committed by the court below, in the procedural aspects of the mandamus proceeding are shown to be harmless and therefore not ground for reversal of the present judgment which is merely a step in the ultimate enforcement of a valid demand against the plaintiff in error heretofore duly put in issue, fully tried and definitely adjudicated by the courts as an enforceable liability for the payment of the sum of money now required to be appropriated by the city and paid over in satisfaction of the judgment rendered against it.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed with leave to defendant in error to so reframe the commands of the writ as to make it capable of being executed after the mandate of this Court in this case shall be lodged in the court below, the costs of this appellate proceeding to be taxed against the plaintiffs in error.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…dy in such instances, at least where the obligation to pay is, as here, no longer subject to dispute. See, e.g., City of Ocoee v. State ex rel. Harris, 155 Fla. 514, 20 So. 2d 674 (1945); Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage and Finance Corp., 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935). Indeed, in this instance it may be the growers’ only remedy as long as the department refuses to pay. Conner next argues that even if a petition for mandamus were appropriate, that petition should have been brought in the circu…
-
Cummings v. City OF Miami Beach, 263 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1972)…bear the statutory interest.” (183 So. 2d p. 841) The District Court of Appeal in the case sub judice merely held that a subsequent judgment for interest was improper and referred to Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage & Finance Corporation, 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935), which held that a petition for writ of mandamus may be employed to enforce a judgment against a City. The question of whether interest on attorneys’ fees should be allowed is not before us, nor are we confronted with the proble…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…upon a common law judgment the lawful method is execution and proceedings supplemental to execution. In the case of a judgment against a City, a petition for writ of mandamus may be employed. Peacock v. State ex rel. American Mortgage & Finance Co., 122 Fla. 25, 164 So. 680 (1935). The judgment appealed is reversed. Reversed. . There is no claim or ground alleged under RCP 1.540.…
Authorities Cited
- Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1934)
- DuBoise Constr. Co. v. City of S. Miami, 108 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1933)
- Dobkin v. Am. Auto. Ins. Assn., 115 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1934)