County Commissioners v. C. E. Johnson & Co.

21 Fla. 577
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 15, 1885·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Raney

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a motion for a rule upon the appellees to show cause why they should not be attached for violating a supersedeas granted by a Justice of this court.

It now appears that intervening the entry of the appeal and the granting of such order the writ of mandamus was obeyed, and the appellees obtained the license to sell liquor from the Collector of Revenue. This' was of course unknown to myself or the other Justices of the court with whom I consulted and with whose concurrence I acted when I made the order.

A supersedeas to a final judgment not performed stays the execution thereof, but does not undo the performance of such judgment which has been fully performed. 5th Fla.,234; 19 Wall., 661, The ruléis denied. This denial, or such performance, however, does not affect the appeal, which stands for such disposition as may be proper. 3 Otto, 150.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

County Commissioners v. C. E. Johnson & Co., 21 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1885).

21 Fla. 577 (County Commissioners v. C. E. Johnson & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kennett v. Barber
31 So. 2d 44 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
Morgan v. Williams
95 So. 611 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Sparkman v. State ex rel. Bank of Ybor City
71 So. 34 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1916)
Thalheim v. Camp Phosphate Co.
48 Fla. 190 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Betts v. State ex rel. Jorgensen
93 N.W. 167 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1903)
Walker v. Sarven
41 Fla. 210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1899)
Burrows v. Mickler
22 Fla. 572 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1886)