| Fla. | Apr 27, 1955
After this action at law was remanded to the circuit court by the federal district court, the petitioner made a second “Special Appearance” contending the circuit court had no jurisdiction over its person. The court entered a ruling adverse to him on that contention and petitioner seeks review thereof by a suggestion for a writ of prohibition filed in this court.
It is conceded that the circuit court has; jurisdiction of -the subject matter of this, law action which is a suit in tort. The question presented, therefore, is whether prohibition will lie to review the correctness of an order of a trial court overruling a challenge to its jurisdiction over the person of a defendant, where that court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. ,
.That prohibition may not be had under those circumstances is clear from our ruling in the similar case of State ex rel. Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129" court="Fla." date_filed="1898-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-rheinauer-v-malone-4915145?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4915145">40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 575, 577, wherein the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit and we held that an adverse ruling by the trial court upon a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-petitioner, based upon an alleged insufficiency of service of process, was a ruling “within the sphere of its jurisdiction” and, therefore, even if that decision were assumed to be wrong; “it would afford no ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, as the
The rule nisi heretofore issued is quashed and the writ of prohibition is discharged.