STATE, EX REL. GEORGE PALMER GARRETT, AS ADMINISTRATOR CUM TESTAMENTO DE BONIS NON OF THE ESTATE OF P. A. VANS AGNEW, SR., DECEASED,
v.
GEORGE W. WHITEHURST, JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT, TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY
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 denied a petition for rehearing in a prohibition case and issued a writ of prohibition preventing a circuit judge from entering orders that would release Fort Myers Drainage District taxpayers from their constitutional obligation to satisfy a valid debt owed to the estate administrator. The court clarified the limited scope of the prohibition, applying only to the relator's specific claim and not affecting prior releases or other creditors' claims.
The court affirmed its previous order granting a limited writ of prohibition absolute, effective prospectively (pendente lite and in futuro) but not affecting prior releases. The writ applies only to the relator's specific claim and does not protect other creditors or preclude judicial action on matters unrelated to releasing lands from the relator's particular claim.
“That writ will be effective pendente lite and in futuro, but has no consequences as to releases of land that may have already been made prior to the institution of the cause.”
Establishes the prospective-only effect of the prohibition writ, preserving the validity of prior releases made before the action was filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator, George Palmer Garrett, as administrator of the Estate of P. A. Vans Agnew, Sr., sought a writ of prohibition against Circuit Judge George…
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 Creditor'S Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
There is no occasion for the granting of a rehearing to consider the alleged estoppel set up against the relator in prohibition in the respondent’s return. That question is one that this Court has deliberately refused to decide in the present case wherein the party respondent is the Circuit Judge and not the Fort Myers Drainage District.
*435It is in the district’s favor that the estoppel exists, if at all, and such estoppel can become available only in some appropriate proceeding wherein the relator, Garrett, as administrator C. T. A., and the district are the parties, to a proper controversy concerning it.
The previous opinion of February 6, 1936, held relator entitled to a limited writ of prohibition only. That" writ will be effective pendente lite and in futuro, but has no consequences as to releases of land that may have already been made prior to the institution of the.cause.
Furthermore, the writ of prohibition sought by relator is for the benefit of the relator individually'with respect to the particular claim asserted and relied upon by him as administrator C. T. A. Tt does not preclude judicial action by the respondent with respect to any matters other than his making future orders under Chapter 16031, Acts of 1933, that will purport to operate to release lands in the Fort Myers Drainage District from relator’s claim.
Other claims than that of the relator are not protected by the limited writ of prohibition we have held should be awarded. This is so because the complaint made is one personal to the relator in his representative capacity as protector of the obligation of his testate’s contract, and may be deemed waived by others similarly situated who fail to timely object in appropriate proceedings.
It is thereupon considered, ordered and adjudged that the petition for a rehearing be denied and that a writ of prohibition absolute do issue commanding the respondent, George W. Whitehurst, as Judge of the Circuit Court in and for Lee County, Florida, forthwith to cease and desist from further entering or purporting to enter orders in that certain cause now pending in the Circuit Court in and for Lee County entitled: “In the Matter of Winding Up and *436Liquidating the Affairs of Fort Myers Drainage District, Case No. 5470,” and from further recognizing Chapter 16031, Acts 1933, as a valid enactment of the Legislature of the State of Florida insofar as the same is asserted to be applicable to the rights claimed by the relator, George Palmer Garrett, as administrator cum testamento annexo de bonis non of the Estate of P. A. Vans Agnew, Sr., deceased, and from further entering or purporting to enter, as against the right of said relator, any orders to release taxpayers of the Fort Myers Drainage District from their constitutional obligation to make good to relator as a valid creditor of said District, by taxation, the valid obligations of said District owing to relator as a creditor.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n v. Honorable Allen C. Anderson, 164 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…rcise of such unauthorized jurisdiction, we will issue the writ even though the Commission’s objection to the jurisdiction was never ruled upon by the circuit court. See 20 F.L.P. Prohibition, § 33; accord: State ex rel. Garrett v. Whitehurst, 1936, 124 Fla. 434, 168 So. 530. Although we have determined that the writ of prohibition should issue, we assume that this will not be necessary. SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.…