Ex Parte Seaboard Realty Co. v. S. All-Fla Ry., (1926)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 3
Judges: WHITFIELD, J. —
Attorneys: George M. Beltzhoover, for Petitioners.
No appearance for respondents.
Filed: Apr. 22, 1926
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 672 This is an application for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Seaboard All-Florida Railway and Honorable Elwyn Thomas, Judge of the Twenty-first Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, from proceeding further in certain condemnation proceedings brought by said railway corporation against petitioners and from taking any action to enter a judgment on the ver
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 672 This is an application for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Seaboard All-Florida Railway and Honorable Elwyn Thomas, Judge of the Twenty-first Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, from proceeding further in certain condemnation proceedings brought by said railway corporation against petitioners and from taking any action to enter a judgment on the verd..
More
If the executive order assigning the Judge of the Twenty-first Judicial Circuit to try and determine certain causes for the condemnation of right-of-way pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit be defective in designating the corporation which "brought" the causes (see Ex parte Daly,66 Fla. 345, 63 South. Rep. 834), the authority of the assigned judge under the executive assignment was not challenged until it was done by petition for a writ of prohibition after verdict rendered; and as the relator has an adequate remedy by writ of error to a final judgment in the condemnation proceedings, the discretionary writ of prohibition should not be awarded. Sherlock v. City of Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 93, text 97; White v. State ex rel., 77 Fla. 528, 81 South. Rep. 639.
Source: CourtListener
