STATE, EX REL. JAMES J. HANNA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF TRI-STATE AMUSEMENT COMPANY,
v.
J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER
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.
This case involves a request for a writ of mandamus to compel the State Comptroller to collect occupational taxes on coin-operated devices. The court denied the writ because the relator failed to demonstrate a direct personal interest in the action sought.
No, a writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a public officer to act when the relator has no direct interest in the action sought to be coerced and no benefit would accrue to them from its performance.
“it is elementary that mandamus will not lie to compel action upon the part of a public officer when it is apparent that the Relator has no direct interest in the action sought to be coerced and that no benefit could accrue to him from its performance.”
Establishes the requirement for a direct interest for a relator seeking mandamus.
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, doing business as Tri-State Amusement Company, sought a writ of mandamus to force the State Comptroller to collect specific occupational …
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 Ministerial Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, the return notwithstanding in a case wherein the alternative writ commands J. M. Lee as Comptroller of the State of Florida “to forthwith provide for the collection from all applicants all persons who as owners display any coin-operated device as defined in the law to the public to be played or operated by the public an occupational tax of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars to the State; Seventy-Five dollars to the County and Seventy-Five dollars to the City or incorporated town and in addition thereto an occupational tax on each automatic vendor for the State of Thirty Dollars; County Fifteen Dollars and City or incorporated town Fifteen Dollars and *589that in default of compliance herewith, to show cause at such time as may be named by this Court, why the alternative writ of mandamus should not be made peremptory, and issue such other and further orders as the Court may find necessary.”
It is not necessary to consider the answer and return because it is elementary that mandamus will not lie to compel action upon the part of a public officer when it is apparent that the Relator has no direct interest in the action sought to be coerced and that no benefit could accrue to him from its performance. To authorize the relief it must clearly appear that there is a specific ministerial duty in the performance of which the applicant for relief is directly interested. The writ will not be granted merely for the purpose of defining the powers and duties of a public officer independent of any direct personal interest upon the part of him who seeks the relief. Peacock v. State, 61 Fla. 393, 43 Sou. 1004; State v. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322, 147 Sou. 908.
The Relator has failed to show that he has any interest which will constitute a basis for the relief sought.
Motion for peremptory writ is denied.
The alternative writ of mandamus is quashed.
So ordered.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Chancey, 129 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1937)…o whom the warrant, if legal, should be issued, and as to whom an unfavorable judgment would be res judicata.” The Pennock case, supra, has also been followed in several later cases including the case of State, ex rel. Hanna, v. Lee, 124 Fla., 588, 169 So. 220. But in the case of Holland v. State, 23 Fla. 123, 1 So. 521, this Court announced the broad general principle that “where a statute imposes a power or duty upon a board of officers, and to execute such power or perform such duty it becomes necessa…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)…to the gravest doubt. See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078; Somlyo v. Schott, supra, 45 So. 2d 502; State ex rel. Hanna v. Lee, 124 Fla. 588, 169 So. 220; Pennock v. State, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004; and State ex rel. Howarth v. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322, 140 So. 908. In the Ayres case, when the fact of the 1954 gubernatorial election was made dependent upon the decision of this court, the degree of public…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 70 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1954)…subject to the gravest doubt. See Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493; Com. of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S. Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078; Somlyo v. Schott, supra, 45 So. 2d 502; State ex rel. Hanna v. Lee, 124 Fla. 588, 169 So. 220 ; Pennock [*479] v. State, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004; and State ex rel. Howarth v. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322, 140 So. 908. In the Ayres case, when the fact of the 1954 gubernatorial election was made dependent upon the decision of this court, the degree o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Casper Howarth v. Saml. D. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1932)
- Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Streety, 61 Fla. 393 (Fla. 1911)