Nation v. StateNation v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sebring
Lead Opinion
Otis G. Nation was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County on a chargе of doing the business of an emigrant agent in the State of Florida without having first obtained a licеnse therefor, contrary to Chapter 22068, Lаws of Florda, 1943. He appealed to the Circuit Court of Orange County from the judgment rendered. The Circuit Court of Orange County affirmed the judgment. Nation then applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the proceеdings below and writ of certiorari was granted. Thе record of the procedings in the trial court is now before us for consideration.
The common law writ of certiorari issues, not to serve the purpose of an apрeal, or to give an aggrieved party a second appeal, but to causе the record of an inferior court to bе brought up in order that a superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceеded in accordance with the essential requirements of law. Des Rocher & Watkins Towing Co. v. Third National Bank, 106 Fla. 466, 143 So. 768; Farnham v. Caldwell, 141 Fla. 416, 193 So. 286. The writ being thus limitеd in function, the subject matter of a suit that has been tried in a court of competent jurisdiсtion and thereafter reviewed in an appropriate appellate tribunal will not be reinvestigated, tried and determined uрon the merits generally when brought here by certiorari. Jacksonville American Publishing Co. v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 143 Fla. 835, 197 So. 672.
All of the matters raisеd by petitioner and brought here by the record were duly presented to the circuit cоurt on appeal. There was ample competent and legal evidencе to support the judgment of the trial court and to sustain the judgment of affirmance rendered by the circuit court on appeal. It does not appear from the face of the record that the trial court has еxceeded its jurisdiction or has not pro *860 eeeded in accordance with the essential requirements of law. •The,common lаw writ of certiorari heretofore issued by this Court must therefore be quashed.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS,. JJ., concur.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring:
The scopе of review under common law certiorari, and the meaning of the phrase “has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law,” are dealt with in Miami Poultry & Egg Co. v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 126 Fla. 563, 172 So. 82; Robinson v. City of Miami, 138 Fla. 697, 190 So. 35, and Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267, 14 So. (2nd) 398.