State ex rel. McKinnon v. Wolfe
This text of 58 Fla. 523 (State ex rel. McKinnon v. Wolfe) 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.
Opinion
An alternative writ of mandamus was issued in this cause requiring the Circuit Judge to show cause why he does not enter a judgment in a civil action different from the judgment actually entered.
A motion is made to quash the alternative writ upon the ground that the judgment defendant is not a party to this proceeding.
[524]*524Where it appears that substantial interests of third parties not before the court are involved, mandamus will not be awarded. See State ex rel. v. Trustees I. I. Fund, 20 Fla. 402; State ex rel. Sunday v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284, 39 South. Rep. 152.
Mandamus lies to compel a court to exercise its lawful jurisdiction when it refuses to do so; but mandamus will not be awarded to correct alleged errors in rendering a judgment where there is an adequate remedy by writ of error. See State ex rel. Matheson v. King, 32 Fla. 416, 13 South. Rep. 891; State ex rel. Hart v. Call, 41 Fla. 442, 26 South. Rep. 1014.
Upon consideration it appears to the court that the party against whom the judgment is asked is not before this court, and that an appropriate remedy may be afforded all parties by writ of error to the judgment complained of, therefore mandamus should not be awarded.
An order will be entered dismissing the alternative writ of mandamus issued herein.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 Fla. 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mckinnon-v-wolfe-fla-1909.