J. E. PEACOCK, COUNTY JUDGE OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, AND J. L. ROBINSON, AS EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF LILLIE M. KASSERMAN, DECEASED,
v.
LON MILLER, AS EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF LILLIE M. KASSERMAN, DECEASED

Fla. | 1936-02-28
Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur., Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
123 Fla. 97 Florida Supreme Court (1936) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 166 So. 212
Cited by 23 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court judgment granting a writ of prohibition against a county judge, holding that prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct errors by a court acting within its jurisdiction. The case involved competing executors of a will and disputes over the probate of a foreign will.

Holding

A writ of prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct errors committed by a court proceeding within the scope of its jurisdiction. The county judge had properly invoked jurisdiction when the party seeking prohibition initiated the proceeding, and that jurisdiction continued to exist.

Key Quotes

“Prohibition does not lie to prevent, or correct the commission of errors, on the part of a court that is proceeding within the scope of its jurisdiction.”

Establishes the fundamental principle that prohibition is unavailable as a remedy for judicial errors when the court has jurisdiction over the matter.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

A petition was filed with the county judge seeking admission and probate of an exemplified copy of a will probated in another state, which purported t…

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.

Topics
Prohibition Writ Of Prohibition

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Brown, J.

Brown, J.

This cause is .before us on. a writ, of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Volusia. County awarding an absolute writ of prohibition against .the county judge of that county, and also upon a motion to vacate or modify an order granting supersedeas pending decision by this court.

In 50 C. J. 714, it is said: “A writ of supersedeas may be issued on appeal from the grant of prohibition, but not on appeal from a judgment denying a writ of prohibition.” There was no error committed by this court in granting the supersedeas. Hughes v. Blanton, 120 Fla. 446, 162 Sou. 914. And in West’s Drug Store v. Cornelius, 108 Fla. 509, 146 So. 554, it was held, that the Circuit Court, which had issued the rule nisi in prohibition but had rendered a final judgment denying the writ absolute, could grant supersedeas pending writ of error to such final judgment, which supersedeas had the effect of holding in force the- statutory supersedeas which went into operation when the rule to show cause in prohibition case was ordered to issue to arrest the progress of the suit being 'heard by the County Judge.

As to the motion to modify our order granting supersedeas, it is not necessary for us to rule thereon, as the cause on writ of error is now at issue the time for the filing of any further briefs having expired, and we are ready to dispose of the case. Without prolonging this opinion by *99detailing the allegations of the writ' and pleadings in the court below, our conclusion is that the judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed upon the authority of Sherlock v. City of Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 93; State v. Smith, 32 Fla. 476, 14 So. 43; State, ex rel. v. Hocker, 33 Fla. 283, 14 So. 586; State v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 574; State v. White, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160; State ex rel. Burr, v. Whitney, 66 Fla. 24, 63 So. 299; State v. R. R. Commissioners, 79 Fla, 526, 84 So. 444; Seaboard Realty Co. v. Seaboard All-Fla. R. Co., 91 Fla. 670, 108 So. 675; Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677; Curtis v. Albritton, 111 Fla. 853, 132 So. 677; Grill v. State Road Dept., 96 Fla. 110, 117 So. 795; State v. Barns, 121 Fla..341, 163 So. 715; 50 C. J. 676; State, ex rel. v. Drumwright, 116 Fla. 496, 156 So. 821. Prohibition does not lie to prevent, or correct the commission of errors, on the part of a court that is proceeding within the scope of its jurisdiction. While we do not .mean to intimate any opinion on the question of whether the County Judge.was right or wrong in the rulings, he had made, or would likely make, pertaining to the legal effect of the will which had been probated in another state and' which 'purported to revoke a will which had been probated in this State, the questions presented had to be ruled on by him in connection with the petition for the admission to record and probate of an exemplified copy of the foreign will and the issuance to the non-resident executor named therein of ancillary letters testamentary, and for the revocation of the prior will which the same court had already admitted to probate, which petition was resisted by the resident executor of the prior will. The County Judge’s jmdsdiction had been invoked by the party who sought to prevent him from ruling on the questions which arose upon the trial *100of the cause. That jurisdiction still existed. There was no ground for writ of prohibition.

Reversed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur.

Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State ex rel. William Schwarz v. The Honorable David J. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1940)
    …such jurisdiction, prohibition will be denied. It does not lie to prevent the commission of errors on the part of a court that is proceeding within the scope of its jurisdiction. See Jacques v. Blanton, 133 Fla. 479, 182 So. 778; Peacock v. Miller, 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212; Sherlock v. City of Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 93; State v. Smith, 32 Fla. 476, 14 So. 43; State ex rel. Floral City Phos. Co. v. Hocker, 33 Fla. 283, 14 So. 586; State v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 574; State v. White, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So.…
  • Lorenzo v. Honorable S. J. Murphy, 159 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1947)
    …th the Fictitious Name Statute. “(6) The court erred in granting to the defendants any relief prayed for in their Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition.” In the case of Peacock, County Judge, et al. v. Miller, decided February 28, 1936, as reported in 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212, this court held: “Prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct commission of errors on part of court that is proceeding within its jurisdiction.” In the case of Walters v. Blanton, County Judge, et al., decided December 8, 1936, as…
  • State Ex Rel. Losey v. Willard, 54 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1951)
    …. 773, 189 So. 1; Adams v. Lewis, 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852; White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So. 2d 580; State ex rel. Johnson v. Anderson, Fla., 1948, 37 So. 2d 910; Harrison v. Murphy, 132 Fla. 579, 181 So. 386; Peacock v. Miller, 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212; State ex rel. Schwarz v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 137, 194 So. 313; Lorenzo v. Murphy, 159 Fla. 639, 32 So. 2d 421; Crill v. State Road Dept., 96 Fla. 110, 117 So. 795. The charge against the relators was one of which the Criminal Court of…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (17 total)

View all 17 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw