State Ex Rel. Treadwell v. HallState Ex Rel. Treadwell v. Hall
Relator, E.D. Treadwell, Jr. is the executor under the will of his father which estate is presently being administered in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Florida. Rеspondent is the county judge of that county “assigned to act as a circuit judge” in that county pursuant to the order of Honorable Robert E. Hensley, Chief Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for DeSoto County, issued on January 2, 1973, and providing in part:
“ORDERED that until further ordеr the Honorable Vincent T. Hall, County Judge of DeSoto County .... is hereby assigned to aсt as a Circuit Judge in DeSoto County in all matters of probate, guardianship, incompetency, trusts, proceedings under `The Florida Mental Health Act\’ and all juvenile рroceedings, dissolutions of marriage, and all uncontested civil matters in circuit court... .”
Respondent County Judge Hall has been a member of The Florida Bar for five years preceding his assignment.
Relator filed a written objection to Respondent concerning his assuming jurisdiction in the probate of his father‘s will.
The issue here is whether under the provisions of revised
“The chief justice of the supreme court shall ... have the power to assign justices or judges ... to temporary duty in any court for which the judge is qualified аnd to delegate to a chief judge of a judicial circuit the power to аssign judges for duty in his respective circuit.”
“... No person is eligible for the office of circuit judge unless he is, and has been for the preceding five years, a member of thе bar of Florida.”
Unquestionably, Judge Hensley‘s order is presently affecting the lives and property of DeSoto County.
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure relating to court administration effective November 29, 1972, were adopted by order of the Supreme Court and appear at 269 So.2d 359. They contain Rule 1.020, 30 F.S.A. This rule was adopted to imрlement
It is our overall view, from a consideration of
Under
Since this litigation presented a question of great public importance we have granted the motions to advаnce, exercised our discretion to accept jurisdiction, dispensed with the issuance of the rule nisi and settled the question instanter.
Having fully considered the matter and resolved the merits as above determined, we direct that suggestion for writ of prohibition be denied.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.