Dubose v. Meister

Supreme Court of Florida

Dubose v. Meister

110 So. 546, 92 Fla. 995

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 110 So. 546 (Dubose v. Meister) 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

Dubose v. Meister, 110 So. 546, 92 Fla. 995 (Fla. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case complaint was- filed before Hon. John W. DuBose, as County Judge of Duval County, against Herman G. Meister praying for an order that a license issued to the said Meister on the 21st day of October, 1925, as a real estate broker be cancelled upon grounds set forth in the complaint. The County Judge assumed jurisdiction of the matter and thereupon a suggestion praying a writ of prohibition was filed in the circuit court of Duval County, Florida, seeking to prohibit John W. DuBose as County Judge from exercising jurisdiction to try the complaint above referred to. On the 24th day of July, 1926, an order for writ of prohibition was made and entered by the Circuit Judge. From this order writ of error was sued out.

On November 9th, 1926, the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that the question involved in the appeal is a moot question and no practical result could be accomplished by reviewing the questions therein involved.

A decision by this Court of the questions involved could be of no practical effect. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the license which was sought to be revoked expired on the 30th day of September, 1926. If this Court, following the law as construed and enunciated in the opinion in the case of Harry E. Prettyman, Inc., v. Fla. Real Estate Commission, ex rel. _ Fla. _; 109 Sou. 442; should *997 reverse the order of prohibition it could avail nothing, because the license which is sought to be revoked by order of the County Judge no longer exists and therefore, no effective order could be made by the County Judge revoking the same.

The writ of error will be dismissed where no practical result could be attained by reviewing the questions therein contained. (Winburn v. Huey, 44 Fla. 739; 33 Sou. 248; St. v. Taylor, 77 Fla. 607; 82 Sou. 604).

The writ of error is now dismissed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

In this case complaint was- filed before Hon. John W. DuBose, as County Judge of Duval County, against Herman G. Meister praying for an order that a license issued to the said Meister on the 21st day of October, 1925, as a real estate broker be cancelled upon grounds set forth in the complaint. The County Judge assumed jurisdiction of the matter and thereupon a suggestion praying a writ of prohibition was filed in the circuit court of Duval County, Florida, seeking to prohibit John W. DuBose as County Judge from exercising jurisdiction to try the complaint above referred to. On the 24th day of July, 1926, an order for writ of prohibition was made and entered by the Circuit Judge. From this order writ of error was sued out.

On November 9th, 1926, the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that the question involved in the appeal is a moot question and no practical result could be accomplished by reviewing the questions therein involved.

A decision by this Court of the questions involved could be of no practical effect. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the license which was sought to be revoked expired on the 30th day of September, 1926. If this Court, following the law as construed and enunciated in the opinion in the case of Harry E. Prettyman, Inc., v. Fla. Real Estate Commission, ex rel. _ Fla. _; 109 Sou. 442; should *997 reverse the order of prohibition it could avail nothing, because the license which is sought to be revoked by order of the County Judge no longer exists and therefore, no effective order could be made by the County Judge revoking the same.

The writ of error will be dismissed where no practical result could be attained by reviewing the questions therein contained. (Winburn v. Huey, 44 Fla. 739; 33 Sou. 248; St. v. Taylor, 77 Fla. 607; 82 Sou. 604).

The writ of error is now dismissed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 546, 92 Fla. 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubose-v-meister-fla-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack