CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ETC. ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL. EVELYN V. SMITH
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 granted a rehearing and affirmed a lower court's judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus, reversing its prior decision that had reversed the judgment. The court had initially overlooked an amendment to the alternative writ that removed a requirement for interest on interest coupons after maturity.
No, the lower court did not err. The peremptory writ correctly reflected the amended alternative writ, which no longer required provision for interest on interest coupons after maturity.
“In our opinion filed July 9, 1936, we reversed the judgment upon the sole ground that the peremptory writ did not follow the alternative writ in requiring provision for the payment of the interest on the coupons after maturity.”
This quote explains the court's initial reason for reversing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lower court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus. The City of New Port Richey appealed, arguing the peremptory writ improperly required provision …
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 Peremptory Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on petition for rehearing in which it is brought to our attention that prior *104to the judgment awarding .peremptory writ of mandamus in' the court below the alternative writ of mandamus had been amended so as to eliminate therefrom the requirement of the payment of interest on interest coupons after maturity.
In our opinion filed July 9, 1936, we reversed the judgment upon the sole, ground that the peremptory writ did not follow the alternative writ in requiring provision for the payment of the interest on the coupons after maturity.
Inasmuch as the amendment above referred to was overlooked by us, the petition for rehearing should be granted .which is now done and, upon reconsideration, of the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
So ordered.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.