Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. Mattie Lee ATKINS, Appellant, v. Dan J. ANDERSON, as Superintendent of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, and L. D. McArthur, O. J. Semines, Sr., M. B. Holmes, W. J. Faris and Carl E. Jones, as Members of the Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, and the Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, a body politic and corporate, Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1952-12-16
Citations: 62 So. 2d 43
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. Mattie Lee ATKINS, Appellant, v. Dan J. ANDERSON, as Superintendent of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, and L. D. McArthur, O. J. Semines, Sr., M. B. Holmes, W. J. Faris and Carl E. Jones, as Members of the Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, and the Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, a body politic and corporate, Appellees.
Judges: SEBRING, C. J., and THOMAS, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur. -
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 62
Pages: 43–43

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. Mattie Lee ATKINS, Appellant, v. Dan J. ANDERSON, as Superintendent of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, and L. D. McArthur, O. J. Semines, Sr., M. B. Holmes, W. J. Faris and Carl E. Jones, as Members of the Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, and the Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, a body politic and corporate, Appellees.
Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.
Dec. 16, 1952.
Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.
William F. Hoffman, Pensacola, for ap-pellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The real question in this case is whether the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to allow relator to amend her writ to seek relief different from that sought in the original writ after the evidence had been adduced. We have carefully examined the record and do not find that the Chancellor abused his discretion in entering final judgment for the respondent. The final- decree of the lower court is therefore affirmed.
SEBRING, C. J., and THOMAS, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur. -