State Ex Rel. Garrett v. Lee

Supreme Court of Florida

State Ex Rel. Garrett v. Lee

177 So. 877, 130 Fla. 217, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 832

DecidedOctober 6, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 877 (State Ex Rel. Garrett v. Lee) 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

State Ex Rel. Garrett v. Lee, 177 So. 877, 130 Fla. 217, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 832 (Fla. 1937).

Pincite

Opinions

Terrell, J.

This is a companion case to State of Florida, ex rel. O. J. Harrell, et al., as Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, v. Fred P. Cone, J. M. Lee, and W. V. Knott, et al., as State Board of Administration, decided this date. The factual situation and the questions raised are not materially different in the two cases. The State Road Department is made a party defendant in the instant case instead of the State Board of Administration. If the funds involved had passed into the hands of the State Road Department, it was properly made a party defendant, but under the law, Chapter 15659, they were *218 •credited to the State Road License Fund to be used by the .State Road Department as sopn as practicable to construct ■’roads in the county. If they were in the hands of the State .Board of Administration, it should have been made a party.

Under the situation presented, this. question perhaps becomes immaterial. The Act relied on, Chapter 17053, Acts of 1935, the questions raised, and the facts involved being similar to are concluded by what we said in State of Florida, ex rel. O. J. Harrell, et al., as Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, v. Fred P. Cone, J. M. Lee, and W. V. Knott, et al., as State Board of Administration.

The motion to quash the alternative writ is accordingly denied.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., dissent.

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

Terrell, J.

This is a companion case to State of Florida, ex rel. O. J. Harrell, et al., as Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, v. Fred P. Cone, J. M. Lee, and W. V. Knott, et al., as State Board of Administration, decided this date. The factual situation and the questions raised are not materially different in the two cases. The State Road Department is made a party defendant in the instant case instead of the State Board of Administration. If the funds involved had passed into the hands of the State Road Department, it was properly made a party defendant, but under the law, Chapter 15659, they were *218 •credited to the State Road License Fund to be used by the .State Road Department as sopn as practicable to construct ■’roads in the county. If they were in the hands of the State .Board of Administration, it should have been made a party.

Under the situation presented, this. question perhaps becomes immaterial. The Act relied on, Chapter 17053, Acts of 1935, the questions raised, and the facts involved being similar to are concluded by what we said in State of Florida, ex rel. O. J. Harrell, et al., as Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, v. Fred P. Cone, J. M. Lee, and W. V. Knott, et al., as State Board of Administration.

The motion to quash the alternative writ is accordingly denied.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 877, 130 Fla. 217, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-garrett-v-lee-fla-1937.