Judges: WHITFIELD, P. J. —
Attorneys: Hampton, Bull Crom, for Petitioner;
Whittaker Brothers and Chancey Thomas, for Respondent.
Filed: Jul. 06, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: An alternative writ of mandamus issued by this Court alleges in effect that on March 29th, 1930, a writ of error was taken to an order granting a new trial in a law action in the Civil Court of Record for Hillsborough County, returnable June 2d 1930, to the circuit court for said county; that on June 11th, 1930, two motions were made to dismiss the writ of error, one motion on the ground that the written directions to the clerk for the preparation of the transcript of the record on the writ of e
Summary: An alternative writ of mandamus issued by this Court alleges in effect that on March 29th, 1930, a writ of error was taken to an order granting a new trial in a law action in the Civil Court of Record for Hillsborough County, returnable June 2d 1930, to the circuit court for said county; that on June 11th, 1930, two motions were made to dismiss the writ of error, one motion on the ground that the written directions to the clerk for the preparation of the transcript of the record on the writ of er..
More
The return of the circuit judge to the alternative writ in this case shows that the writ of error from the judgment of the Civil Court of Record was sued out to the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, prior to June 22d 1931, the date on which Chapter 15666, Acts of 1931, took effect.
Under our decision in State ex rel. Rifas v. Atkinson,102 Fla. 1028, 137 Sou. Rep. 266, Chapter 15666, Acts of 1931, does not apply to any writ of error sued out before Chapter 15666,supra, took effect. Therefore the peremptory writ of mandamus should be denied as attempting to coerce the circuit judge to proceed under a statute having no application to the particular writ of error dismissed by an order signed by only one circuit judge.
