Case Name: The City of Pensacola, Plaintiff in Error, vs. George Reese, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1884-01
Citations: 20 Fla. 437
Docket Number: 
Parties: The City of Pensacola, Plaintiff in Error, vs. George Reese, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
The City of Pensacola, Plaintiff in Error, vs. George Reese, Defendant in Error.
A ■writ of error must be sued out in tlie name Of a party to tlie record.' If a person not a party to tlie record lias such an interest as gives him the rijjlit to sue out a writ of error he must sue it out in the name of a party to tlie record. The parties of record here are to be as they are in tlie Circuit Court : QHere, Whether under our statute (Chapter 3139, Laws,) a municipal corporation can sue out a writ of error in the name of'its officer to try the legality of tlie discharge of a prisoner from his custody, as marshal of the city, who was in his custody for, an alleged violation of its ordinances.
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia county.
The defendant in error'moved to dismiss the writ because it “ was not sued out by a party to the judgment below.”
S. JR.. Mallory for the motion.
S. JBelden contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Westcott
delivered the opinion of the court.
A trial was had before the Mayor of the City of Pensacola of George Reese for an alleged violation of the ordinances of the city. After conviction and while in the custody of the Marshal the prisoner sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the Judge of the Circuit Court, who discharged him. The City of Pensacola now brings this writ of error in its own name, and not in the name of its officer, the person to whom the writ was issued and the party to the judgment. Even if the writ may be issued at the instance of the city as a party aggrieved by the judgment, although it is not strictly " a party to such judgment," as provided by the statute, still we are entirely satisfied that such writ must issue, not in the name of the city, but in the name of the officer, the party to the judgment. The case must be brought here as it was in the Circuit Court. This writ must therefore be dismissed. In the present state of the record, the question whether the city may sue out the writ in the name of its officer, does not arise, and of it we say nothing.
The writ is dismissed.