MATTIE J. SMITH, ET VIR, PETITIONERS,
v.
HONORABLE J. E. PEACOCK, AS COUNTY JUDGE OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1941-02-18
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
146 Fla. 181 Florida Supreme Court (1941) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 200 So. 522
Cited by 3 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.


Holding

The court held that a writ of prohibition will not be granted without a showing that the respondent judge will act without or exceed jurisdiction.


Facts & Procedural History

A petition for writ of prohibition was filed seeking to prohibit a county judge from acting on a petition for allowances. The petition sought costs, 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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on petition for. writ of prohibition to be addressed to the Honorable J. E. Peacock, County Judge of Volusia County, to prohibit him considering and acting upon a certain petition filed before him as Judge of Probate in and for Volusia County, Florida, wherein and whereby it is prayed:

*182“Wherefore, Your Petitioners respectfully pray that this Honorable Court will make a reasonable allowance to said Millard B. Conklin as costs of this proceeding and the preparation of said transcript of record and to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in the sum of $------for verifying and certifying said transcript and to said Millard B. Conklin in the amount of $24.00 for costs paid on two appeals to the Supreme Court and to said Millard B. Conklin such reasonable sum for professional services rendered as tO' this Court may seem just and proper.”

There is no showing before us which will warrant our assuming that the respondent county judge will assume to act without jurisdiction or will make any order in the premises exceeding his jurisdiction. Without such showing, this Court shall not assume to exercise the extraordinary power incident to granting the writ of prohibition.

Prohibition denied.

Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …ines the question of jurisdiction now pending before him he will reach a proper legal conclusion. There is no sufficient showing made that the circuit court will proceed to act without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. See Smith v. Peacock, 146 Fla. 181, 200 [*617] So. 522; Crill v. State Road Department, 96 Fla. 110, 117 So. 785; State ex rel. v. Malone, Judge, 40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 575. Therefore, I think the application for the writ of prohibition is premature and the Rule Nisi should be discharg…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw