Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: Pleus, Williams Pleus, for Relator;
Fred H. Kent, for Respondents;
Watson Pasco Brown, of Pensacola, and Whitfield Whitfield, of Tallahassee, for certain bondholders, petioners seeking to stay the execution of the peremptory writ.
Filed: Feb. 09, 1938
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Whereas, the Court as is stated in the Opinion by Mr. Presiding Justice WHITFIELD, on the 16th day of December, 1937, after its issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus in the above entitled cause, for the *Page 425 reasons stated, issued its stay order in the following language, to-wit: "Attorneys representing H.C. Rorick, Joseph R. Grundy and James R. Easton having filed a petition asking, (a) for leave to intervene herein, (b) that this Court recall its peremptory writ of mandamus herein or
Summary: Whereas, the Court as is stated in the Opinion by Mr. Presiding Justice WHITFIELD, on the 16th day of December, 1937, after its issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus in the above entitled cause, for the *Page 425 reasons stated, issued its stay order in the following language, to-wit: "Attorneys representing H.C. Rorick, Joseph R. Grundy and James R. Easton having filed a petition asking, (a) for leave to intervene herein, (b) that this Court recall its peremptory writ of mandamus herein or i..
More
I think the question prepared by Mr. Presiding Justice WHITFIELD is sound but for the fact that the status of parties to the cause and other litigants have been changed by relying on the order made by this Court and we have not the power to place them in status quo ante. Therefore, our judgment, though improvidently entered, should stand.
BROWN and CHAPMAN, J.J., concur.
