MINNIE H. REYNOLDS, PETITIONER,
v.
MALLORY F. HORNE, AS CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns a petition for a Writ of Prohibition to prevent a Circuit Judge from holding court in Taylor County. The court held that adjourning a regular term to a date beyond the statutory period for another county's term did not invalidate the adjourned term, which was legally considered a special term. The petition was denied.
No, the court held that the adjourned term, even if it extends beyond another county's statutory term, is legally considered a special term. The mere fact of adjournment to a future date does not invalidate the proceedings held during that term.
“Under the statute the Circuit Judge had the power to call an extra or special term of the court, and the mere fact that the judge in form adjourned the court to a future day, covering and beyond the period during which a regular term of the court should be and was held in another comity of the circuit and that' he designated the term to be held as an adjourned term, does not in law make the term to be held at the future day a continuation of the regular term; but in law the future term is an extra or special term of the Circuit Court for Taylor County, and should be so regarded in proceedings taken during such term.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning that an adjourned term, even with an overlap, is legally a special term.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Circuit Judge for Taylor County adjourned the regular Fall Term to October 20, 1924. This date fell after the statutory period for the regular Fal…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On'an application for a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the Circuilt Judge from holding a term of the Circuit Court in Taylor county, it appears from the allegations of the petition that during the regular1 Fall Term of the Circuit Court for Taylor County, the judge of the court on October 2nd, A. D. 1924, adjourned the court to October 20th, A. D. 1924, that day being a day after the period fixed by the statute for the regular Fall Term of the Circuit Court for Madison County in the same circuit, which term was duly held, and that a regular term of the Circuit Court for Columbia County in the same circuit was begun under the statute on October 27, 1924, and such term is being held by another Circuit Judge under temporary assignment by the Governor as provided by law, there being only one Circuit Judge for that circuit.
Under the statute the Circuit Judge had the power to call an extra or special term of the court, and the mere fact that the judge in form adjourned the court to a future day, covering and beyond the period during which a regular term of the court should be and was held in another comity of the circuit and that' he designated the term to be held as an adjourned term, does not in law make the term to be held at the future day a continuation of the regular term; but in law the future term is an extra or special term of the Circuit Court for Taylor County, and should be so regarded in proceedings taken during such term. See Peoples v. State, 46 Fla. 101, 35 South. Rep. 223; Cannon v. State, 62 Fla. 20, 57 South. Rep. 240, modified. And the fact that during such special term the regular term of the Circuit Court in another county in the circuit is convened and held by a Circuit Judge temporarily assigned for that purpose by the Governor, does not prevent the holding of the special term of the court in Taylor county at the appointed time. See State ex rel. Claar v. Branning, 85 Fla. 61, 95 South. Rep. 237.
Prohibition denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Calvin Claar & J. J. Claar v. Branning, 85 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1923)
- Cannon v. State, 62 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1911)
- Peeples v. State, 46 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1903)