STATE EX REL. H. E. FISHER
v.
M. G. ROWE, JUDGE
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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for a supplementary alternative writ of mandamus, holding that mandamus is not the appropriate remedy to challenge a final decree entered by a circuit judge after compliance with a prior mandamus order.
No, a writ of mandamus is not the proper remedy to challenge a final decree. If the decree is conceived to be erroneous, the correct method of reversal is by appeal.
“If con [*2] ceived to be erroneous, the method of reversing it is by appeal, not mandamus.”
Establishes the proper remedy for challenging an erroneous court order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel a circuit judge to vacate an order entered on August 9, 1933, in a divorce case. This order was ent…
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 Alternative Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a peititon for what is designated as a supplementary alternative writ of mandamus against the respondent Circuit Judge, commanding him to vacate a certain order entered by him on August 9, 1933, in the divorce case of H. E. Fisher v. Mattie E. Fisher, after complying with a peremptory writ of mandamus ordered by this Court in the case of State ex rel. Fisher v. Rowe, Circuit Judge, 110 Fla. 141, 148 Sou. Rep. 588 (opinion filed May 9, 1933).
The order of August 9, 1933, is in legal effect a final decree in the cause dismissing the bill of complaint. If con*2ceived to be erroneous, the method of reversing it is by appeal, not mandamus.
Our peremptory writ in the former mandamus proceeding instituted against the Circuit Judge was duly complied with in all essential particulars when the respondent, as chancellor, proceeded to take the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses.
The effect of a writ of mandamus against a judicial officer requiring him to proceed with the trial of a cause of which he has jurisdiction, does not have the effect of limiting the scope of the proceeding, nor the judgment or decree that the court may decide should be entered. If such judgment or decree be entered erroneously, appeal, not another writ of mandamus, is the proper remedy.
Supplementary alternative writ of mandamus denied.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.