Myers v. State ex rel. Thompson

Citations

• 81 Fla. 32
• 87 So. 80

Syllabus

<p>1. The writ of mandamus does not supersede legal remedies, but rather supplies the want of a legal remedy, therefore two prerequisites must exist to warrant a court in granting this extraordinary remedy: first, it must appear that .the relator has a clear, legal right to the performance of the particular duty by the respondent; and, second, that the law affords no other adequate or specific remedy to secure the performance of the duty which it is sought to coerce.</p> <p>2. Mandamus is not the proper method of trying collateral questions. which require a legal controversy for their settlement.</p> <p>3. At common law the issuance of a writ of mandamus is not a matter of course; being in its nature a prerogative writ, its issuance is to a certain extent a matter of judicial discretion, and even in this country where the prerogative character of the writ is no longer fully recognized the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant it rests, to a considerable extent, in the sound discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have bean established by the courts.</p> <p>4. In mandamus proceedings where the legal right of the relator to the relief sought does not clearly appear and where questions involved should be adjudicated in other appropriate proceedings, a peremptory writ should be denied.</p>