State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Johnson
Citations
- 35 Fla. 2
Syllabus
<p>1. In an alternative writ of mandamus upon tlie part of the State, to compel the surrender by a prior incumbent of a public office of the office room and the records, boohs and papers of the same, it is not absolutely necessary to allege in specific words that the term of office of such prior incumbent has expired. While the writ would be more exact and definite if the specific .words were used, their use is not essential, and words fully equivalent, from which the expiration of the term follows as a necessary consequence, are sufficient.</p> <p>2. Allegations contained in such an alternative writ of mandamus as is mentioned in preceding head-note, to the effect that at a general election held in accordance with the provisions of law in this State, in the county of Duval, one J. F. G. was a candidate for the office of Tax Collector of said county, was voted for at said election for said office; that the returns of said election were duly canvassed by the proper canvassing board of said county, and that he was shown by such canvass to have received the highest number of votes cast for any person for such office, and was declared elected to the same; that the supervisor of registration of such county gave him a certificate of his election, certifying that according to said returns and canvass he was at said election elected Tax Collector of said county for the term prescribed by law — beginning on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, A. D. 1895 — (which precedes the date of said writ); that he had duly given his bond and qualified for said office in all respects, and that the Governor of the State, under his hand and the great seal of the State, did commission him to be such Tax Collector, according to the Constitution and laws of this State, for the term of two years from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, A. D. 1895, and until his successor is qualified; that the incumbent of said office prior to the term for which said J. F. G.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- likely that trial court's refusal to sever was not an abuse of discretion where evidence of extraneous acts was admissible
- likely that trial court’s refusal to sever was not an abuse of discretion where evidence of extraneous acts was admissible
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Liddon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.