Case Name: HAHN v. FREDERICK
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1953-07-24
Citations: 66 So. 2d 823
Docket Number: 
Parties: HAHN v. FREDERICK.
Judges: ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 66
Pages: 823–826

Head Matter:
HAHN v. FREDERICK.
Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.
July 24, 1953.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1953.
W. J. Gardiner, Daytona Beach, and Carmelita B. Tartarí, De Land, for petitioner.
Murray Sams, De Land, for respondent.

Opinion:
SEBRING, Justice.
This is an original prohibition proceeding wherein the petitioner suggests the disqualification of the respondent to preside further in a pending cause wherein the petitioner is a party, on the ground of the alleged bias of the respondent in favor of the opposite party to the detriment of the petitioner.
As appears from such record as is before us, the petitioner, Hahn, in January 1951, instituted a suit in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, for the purpose of procuring a decree dissolving a partnership in which he and Charles E. Tribble, the defendant in the cause, were partners, and for the appointment of a receiver and an accounting. During the period of time extending from the date of the institution of suit until May 19, 1953, several orders were made in the cause by Honorable Herbert B. Frederick, resident circuit judge of Volusia County, without any objection to his presiding in the cause being voiced by either the plaintiff or the defendant. On May 19, 1953, the plaintiffs filed a suggestion and affidavit pursuant to the provisions of section 38.10, Florida Statutes 1951, F. S.A., suggesting the disqualification of the resident judge to entertain further jurisdiction of the cause on the ground that the judge was prejudiced against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. The circuit judge refused to disqualify himseif upon the showing made in the affidavits and this proceeding followed.
Section 38.10, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., provides, in part, that "Whenever a party' to any action or proceeding, shall make and file an affidavit that he fears that he will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of said court against, the applicant, or in ' favor of the adverse-party, such judge shall proceed no further therein . Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists- and ihe facts stated as a basis for making the said affidavit shall be supported in substance by affidavit of at least two reputable citizens of the county not of kin to defendant or counsel for the defendant (Emphasis supplied.)
Attached to the affidavit that was presented to the circuit judge as the basis for his disqualification were the affidavits of two reputable citizens of the county who deposed that they were not of kin to either party or his counsel. So far as the same is-relevant in this proceeding, the affidavit made by each of the affiants stated: "That he has read the above and foregoing petition ; and that the matters therein contained are true to the best 'of his knowledge, information and belief and that he verily believes that the Honorable Herbert B. Frederick, Circuit Judge for Volusia. County, Florida, is prejudiced against Theodore F. Hahn, Jr., M. D., and in favor of Charles F. Tribble, M. D., and that said Theodore F. Hahn, Jr., M. D., will not receive a fair trial before the Honorable Herbert B. Frederick in connection with-the above styled case."
It will be observed from a reading of section 38.10, supra, that this statute requires, as a predicate for the disqualification of a judge on the ground of bias or prejudice, that the affidavit filed by the moving party "shall state the facts and'the-reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists". It also requires that two-affidavits be filed in support of the main affidavit and that "the facts stated as a basis for making the [main] affidavit shall be supported in substance" 'in these twqt affidavits.
Where these two requirements are not observed there is no compliance with the statute, and hence there is no valid basis for the disqualification of a judge on the ground of bias or prejudice.
The affidavits attached to the main affidavit do not comport with the statute. They do not support in substance the facts stated as a basis for making the main affidavit. The farthest either affiant goes in supporting the facts stated in the main affidavit is his statement that the facts in the main affidavit are true "to the best of his knowledge, information and belief." Such a statement in an affidavit amounts to no more than a statement that so far as affiant's knowledge goes, the facts are true; but in order to "support the facts in substance," the affidavits must be that affiant has knozvledge of the facts and knows them to be true. An affidavit the statements of which are alleged on information and belief is, by the weight of authority, insufficient in any instance where one is -required to make affidavit as to -the substantive truth of facts stated, and not merely as to good faith. Heitz v. Sayers, 1 W.W.Harr. 221, 31 Del. 221, 113 A. 901; Dyer v. Flint, 21 Ill. 80, 74 Am.Dec. 73; Clarke v. Nebraska Nat. Bank, 57 Neb. 314, 77 N.W. 805; Cook v. Whipple, 55 N.Y. 150, 14 Am.Rep. 202; Miller v. First. State Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W. 614. 1 R.C.L. 772. This necessarily follows, in our opinion, from the well settled rule that the facts of an affidavit must be stated in a positive, and not a qualified manner. See 1 Am.Jur.Affidavits, sec. 23 and 24.
In the order which the circuit judge entered refusing to disqualify himself in the cause, the judge noted the failure of the affidavits to comply with the statute. We think that under the circumstances he ruled quite correctly in refusing to disqualify himself on this ground and hence, without regard to any analysis of the alleged facts contained in the main affidavit, which the trial judge ruled upon and found to be insufficient, as do we, we must hold that under the showing made no predicate for the issuance of a writ of prohibi-tion has been shown and hence that, the petition should be denied.
Accordingly, the petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition is denied and the cause is dismissed at the cost of the petitioners.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, J., dissents.