Case Name: State of Florida, ex rel. James E. Alexander, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cary D. Landis, as Secretary of the Democratic Executive Committee, Volusia County, Florida, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1905-06
Citations: 50 Fla. 283
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Florida, ex rel. James E. Alexander, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cary D. Landis, as Secretary of the Democratic Executive Committee, Volusia County, Florida, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Shackleford, C. J., Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
State of Florida, ex rel. James E. Alexander, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cary D. Landis, as Secretary of the Democratic Executive Committee, Volusia County, Florida, Defendant in Error.
An order granting a motion to Quash an alternative writ of mandamus, but allowing relator to amend as he may be advised, is not such a final judgment as will support a writ ¡of error.
This case was decided by Division A.
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
W. B. Crawford, for Plaintiff in Error.
Egford Bty, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the Secretary of the County Democratic Executive Committee to furnish relator a copy of the poll list at Election District No. 2 in Volusia county at the primary election held May 10, 1904. A motion to quash the alternative writ was filed, setting forth among other grounds the failure of said writ to negative other adequate remedy. Upon the hearing of this motion the following order was made: "Motion is granted and the relator is allowed to amend his writ and petition as he may be advised." No further or other order appears in the transcript, and the writ of error mentions specifically this order and none other. Such an order is interlocutory and will not support a writ of error. Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325.
The writ is dismissed.
Shackleford, C. J., Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
wfflwsewswtRWWJA»/»*