Skip to main content
· 1/15/1886

State ex rel. Edwards v. County Commissioners of Sumter County

Citations

  • 22 Fla. 1

Syllabus

<p>1. The allegations of a return or an answer to au alternative writ of mandamus, should he stated positively, and not upon information and belief.</p> <p>2. The rules requiring pleas to he sworn to does not restrict a defendant to pleading matters of defence which are within his personal knowledge. The affidavit is required as an evidence of the pleader’s good faith in setting up the defence.</p> <p>8. If the alternative writ in a proceeding to compel the Comity Commissioners of a county to issue a permit under Chapter 3416, Laws of Florida, granting the right to sell liquors, wines or beer, makes the necessary allegation that the petition to the Commissioners was signed by a majority of the registered voters of the election district, and the return to the writ alleges ifai a proper manner that certain names appearing thereon as petitioners were not signed by, and the signing thereof is not the act and deed of, the persons represented by such names, and that without such names the petition does not contain a majority of the registered Voters of the district, a material issue will he raised, and the burden will be upon the relator to prove his averment.</p> <p>4. The applicant for the right to sell liquors, wines or beers, under the above statute, may sign his own petition and is to he counted the same as any other registered voter of the election district.</p> <p>5. The simple failure to publish the “marks” of a few petitioners whose names are published, is not a material defect in complying with the provisions of the statute.</p> <p>6. Although the statute requires that each petitioner shall sign the petition in the presence of two credible witnesses, it does not require the witnesses to subscribe to such signing.</p> <p>7. A person who has not obtained a permit from the County Commissioners under Chapter 3416, Laws of Florida, cannot lawfully carry on the business of a liquor dealer : such a permit is a warrant not only of the right, but also of the personal fit

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a court is not empowered to prevent the Director from discharging a special deputy, even though the special deputy, once appointed with the court’s authority, is by statute subject to the specific supervision of the court, much like the Director

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Raney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.