Dade Realty Corporation v. Harry Schoenthal

Supreme Court of Florida

Dade Realty Corporation v. Harry Schoenthal

7 So. 2d 459, 150 Fla. 85, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 931

DecidedMarch 10, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 7 So. 2d 459 (Dade Realty Corporation v. Harry Schoenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dade Realty Corporation v. Harry Schoenthal, 7 So. 2d 459, 150 Fla. 85, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 931 (Fla. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

TERRELL, J.:

This is a companion case to Dade Realty Corporation v. Esther Schoenthal, et al., decided this date. In the latter case, we prohibited the Circuit Court of Dade County from reviewing the judgment of the County Judge in a distress for rent proceeding. In the case at bar, we are asked to prohibit the Circuit Court of Dade County from requiring the County Judge by mandamus to vacate the same judgment.

The record discloses that the ultimate question involved in both cases is identical, that review by appeal is adequate and that there is no basis shown for mandamus so the writ of prohibition is granted on authority of Dade Realty Corporation v. Esther Schoenthal, et al., decided this date.

BÚFORD, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur. *86 BROWN, C. J., and THOMAS, J., dissent. WHITFIELD, J., not participating.

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

TERRELL, J.:

This is a companion case to Dade Realty Corporation v. Esther Schoenthal, et al., decided this date. In the latter case, we prohibited the Circuit Court of Dade County from reviewing the judgment of the County Judge in a distress for rent proceeding. In the case at bar, we are asked to prohibit the Circuit Court of Dade County from requiring the County Judge by mandamus to vacate the same judgment.

The record discloses that the ultimate question involved in both cases is identical, that review by appeal is adequate and that there is no basis shown for mandamus so the writ of prohibition is granted on authority of Dade Realty Corporation v. Esther Schoenthal, et al., decided this date.

BÚFORD, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur. *86 BROWN, C. J., and THOMAS, J., dissent. WHITFIELD, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 2d 459, 150 Fla. 85, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dade-realty-corporation-v-harry-schoenthal-fla-1942.