STATE, EX REL. HENRY T. TITUS,
v.
J. E. PEACOCK, AS COUNTY JUDGE OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, O. G. SAGE, AS SUPERVISOR OF REGISTRATION OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, AND E. A. LATHAM, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD OF VOLUSIA 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.
This case involves a mandamus action seeking to remove absentee ballots from a vote count. The court found that the respondents' inability to identify and subtract the challenged ballots, due to events beyond their control, constituted a valid defense.
No, the County Canvassing Board cannot be compelled to subtract ballots if it is impossible to identify and isolate them from a completed canvass, especially when this impossibility is due to events beyond their control.
“Such return presents a good defense inasmuch as inability of respondents to comply with the commands of an alternative writ of mandamus occasioned by happenings over which they presently have no control, operates as a lawful justification for failure to comply with its commands.”
This quote establishes the core legal principle that impossibility of compliance, due to circumstances beyond the respondent's control, is a valid defense against a writ of mandamus.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel the County Canvassing Board to remove allegedly unlawful out-of-state absentee ballots from the result…
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.
— The return of respondent, J. E. Peacock, avers that it is impossible for the respondents, as a County Canvassing Board, to now identify and undertake to subtract from the results of the completed canvass of votes cast for the office of Justice of the Peace of the Eighth Justice District of Volusia County the unchallenged out of State absentee ballots that are alleged to have been unlawfully cast and counted under Chapter 16986, Acts of 1935, for the relator and his opponent for the Democratic nomination to the office of Justice of Peace as commanded by the alternative writ, even if said Chapter 17986 should be adjudged unconstitutional as claimed in this proceeding.
*453Such return presents a good defense inasmuch as inability of respondents to comply with the commands of an alternative writ of mandamus occasioned by happenings over which they presently have no control, operates as a lawful justification for failure to comply with its commands. County Com’rs of Duval County v. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196, 18 Sou. Rep. 339, 29 L. R. A. 416.
The return is adjudged sufficient and relator required to join issue thereon, in default of which the alternative writ will be quashed and the proceeding dismissed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. The Honorable Fredricka Smith, 673 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…s filed, nor one that would be futile. State ex rel. Walker v. Best, 121 Fla. 304,163 So. 696 (1935). In addition, a showing that a person has no ability to comply with the order justifies noncompli-anee. State ex rel. Titus v. Peacock, 125 Fla. 452,170 So. 127 (1936). Since the petitioner has not demonstrated that any Florida official has the ability to comply with the order, or that he has a clear legal right to enforcement of the order, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. . This may still b…
-
State v. McNAYR, 18 Fla. Supp. 102 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1961)…also, County Commissioners of Duval County v. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196, 18 So. 339; State ex rel. Peck v. Bowden, 18 Fla. 17; State ex rel. Burr v. Tavares & G. R. Co., 78 Fla. 329, 82 So. 833 ;State ex rel. Titus v. Peacock, 125 Fla. 452, 170 So. 127; Board of Public Instruction of Lafayette County v. State ex rel. Taylor, 156 Fla. 708, 24 So. 2d 99. See generally, 4 U. Fla. L. Rev., Mandamus in Florida, 535, 539. Considering the evidence on this issue in the light most favorable to the relator…
-
Miller v. Carson, 524 F. Supp. 1174 (M.D. Fla. 1981)…HRS also posits that financial and/or physical inability to comply are grounds for denial of a writ of mandamus. There is some Florida case law supporting this proposition, although most of it is somewhat dated. State ex rel. Titus v. Peacock, 125 Fla. 452, 170 So. 127 (1936); State ex rel. Burr v. Tavarse & G. R. Co., 78 Fla. 329, 82 So. 833 (1919). The eases generally involve situations where performance of the action sought to be compelled would be absolutely impossible, rather than simply im…
Authorities Cited
- Cnty. Comm'rs of Duval Cnty. v. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1895)