Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 Fla. 74

104 So 857

Frenkel v. State Ex Rel. Johnson

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided February 3, 1925

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1925-02-03

Relies on Yent v. State ex rel. Richardson · Galvin v. Davidson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-02-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1962

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

2019251930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The writ of error herein is dismissed on authority of Yent v. State ex rel. Richardson, 66 Fla. 336, 63 South. Rep. 452; Galvin v. Davidson, 48 Fla. 75, 37 South. Rep. 575.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Browne and Terrell, J. J., concur.

¶2 On Eehearing.

Per Curiam.

¶3 This writ of error with a supersedeas was taken to a final order rendered September 20, 1924, awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the issue of a license for, operating four billiard tables in the City of Pensacola. The applications for such license had been made January 20, 1924. Under the ordinances of the city all licenses expire on the 30th day of September each year. The transcript of the writ of error was filed here November 1, 1924. When the case was reached, the period of time for which the license was to be issued having expired the writ of error was dismissed on the authority of Yent v. State ex rel. Richardson, 66 Fla. 336, 63 South. Rep. 452; and Galvin v. Davidson, 48 Fla. 75, 37 South. Rep. 575. A rehearing was granted.

¶4 It appears that, the relator for more than 30 days before he made application for a license therefor, had been operating billiard tables for other than private use, without a license and in violation of the ordinances of the city. For this reason, if for no other, the peremptory writ of mandamus should have been denied; and a dismissal of the writ of error because the license period had expired was not an affirmance of the final order awarding the peremptory *76 writ, nor did it affect the rights of the city against the relator for breaches of the city ordinance he may have committed.

¶5 The order dismissing the writ of error'will stand as the final order of this court.

West, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.
/89/fla/74 · .json · Public domain