From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Mercantile Investment Holding v. Tedder

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc
Jun 22, 1942
150 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1942)

Opinion

March 24, 1942 On Rehearing May 22, 1942 Further Rehearing Denied June 22, 1942

A case of original jurisdiction — prohibition.

Arthur S. Friedman Evans, Mershon Sawyer, and Herbert S. Sawyer, for petitioner.

McCune, Hiaasen Fleming, for respondents.


Heretofore this Court issued its rule nisi in prohibition. Returns have now been filed and we will determine the sufficiency of same.

This case was before us to review a judgment for plaintiff based upon a declaration in special and general assumpsit. Mercantile Inv. Holding Co. v. Gilliland, 3 So.2d 149. The gist of our holding was that special assumpsit would not he and the evidence was insufficient on general assumpsit. Upon authority of Pritchett, et al., v. Brevard Naval Stores Co., et al., 134 Fla. 649, 185 So. 134, and Webb. Fur. Co. Inc. v. Everett, 105 Fla. 292, 141 So. 115, we now hold the returns sufficient and discharge the rule nisi.

So ordered.

WHITFIELD, TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

BROWN, C. J., CHAPMAN, and THOMAS, JJ., dissent.

ON REHEARING


We denied prohibition here on March 24, 1942, and now we consider same on rehearing granted.

When this Court reverses a judgment it has the power to direct the entry of such judgment as may be proper in law. Section 4640, C.G.L. 1927. Garzo v. Brophy Const. Co., 66 Fla. 607, 64 So. 234.

When we reversed the judgment in this case, ( 147 Fla. 610, 3 So.2d 149) we were of the opinion that the planitiff had introduced evidence of services rendered but had not produced evidence of the reasonable value of such service. Furthermore it appeared that the defendant's plea of payment had been proven. Upon further consideration we think these facts distinguish this case from Pritchett, et al., v. Brevard Naval Stores Co., et al., 134 Fla. 649, 185 So. 134, and Webb Fur. Co. Inc., v. Everett, 105 Fla. 292, 141 So. 115. In that state of the record the defendant was entitled to judgment. We might have directed the entry of a judgment for the defendant. We directed further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion which amounted to the same. Oral argument was had on this original proceeding and no question was raised as to the remedy here pursued.

It is therefore ordered that our judgment entered on March 24, 1942, be vacated and writ of prohibition absolute is now granted and the respondent is prohibited from further proceeding herein except to enter a judgment for defendant.

So ordered.

BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State Mercantile Investment Holding v. Tedder

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc
Jun 22, 1942
150 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1942)
Case details for

State Mercantile Investment Holding v. Tedder

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA ex rel. MERCANTILE INVESTMENT HOLDING CO., a Florida…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc

Date published: Jun 22, 1942

Citations

150 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1942)
8 So. 2d 470

Citing Cases

Pinellas Cty Water Navig. v. Zabel

Without elaborating, we conclude that the circuit court's order complies with our mandate and is consistent…

Central S. Fla. Flood v. Dupuis

We are authorized, under § 59.34 Fla. Stat., F.S.A., to make such "decree as the court below should have…