Ex parte Robert W. White.--Statement of Case. On the 6th day of January, 1851, Robert W. White filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court the following petition: To the Honorable the Supreme Court of the State of Florida: The petition of Robert W. White, of Jefferson County, in this State, respectfully showeth unto your Honors, that, on the 9th day of December, A. D. 1850, he purchased of David S. Walker, Register of Public Lands for the State of Florida, the west half of the southeast quarter of section sixteen, township one, range three, south and east, at the rate of five dollars per acre, amounting to four hundred 80100 dollars, and that your petitioner paid one-fourth of the purchase money, and interest on the balance, and gave his bonds for the said balance, as required by the laws of this State. That at the same time, your petitioner entered into a written agreement with said Walker, as Register as aforesaid, by which it was "understood that, notwithstanding said sale, said land was to be offered at public sale, and if it should sell for five dollars per acre, then said White was to take it that price. If it should sell for over five, he was to take it or not as he liked; but if it should sell for over two dollars and fifty cents per acre, and under five dollars, he was to take it at that price”—a copy of which, your petitioner annexes hereto. Your petitioner further shows that, at the same time, it was understood by and between your petitioner and said Walker, but not in writing, that your petitioner could, at any time before said sale, perfect his purchase, by agreeing to take the land at the price of five dollars per acre, and thus rescind the understanding or agreement in writing above referred to. That afterwards, and on the 19th day of December, 1850, your petitioner wrote to said Walker, as Register, as aforesaid, a letter, in which your petitioner stated that he had concluded "to take the land at five dollars per acre, instead of waiting for it to be sold under the last appraisement"-which last ap JANUARY TERM, 1851. 167 Ex parte Robert W. White.-Statement of Case. praisement fixed the value of said land at two dollars and fifty cents per acre. That your petitioner subsequently tendered the balance of the money for said land to said Walker, Register as aforesaid, and demanded a deed from said Walker for the same; but the said Walker refused either to accept the amount tendered, or make a deed to your petitioner, for reasons based on said written agreement, in conjunction with other matters, which your petitioner insists had no connection with this purchase, and should not operate against your petitioner in the premises. Your petitioner, therefore, prays that a rule on the said David S. Walker, Register as aforesaid, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued by this honorable court, commanding the said Walker, Register as aforesaid, to convey by deed the said land to your petitioner, upon the payment of the balance of the purchase money due, may be granted, and that, finally, the said Walker, Register, may be commanded to convey said land, as prayed to be directed in said rule, and your petitioner, as in duty bound, will every pray, &c. ROBERT W. WHITE, BY M. D. PAPY. A rule was taken, returnable at a future day, and on the 3d day. of February, 1851, David S. Walker, Register of Public Lands, made the following return to the rule served, viz: In obedience to the rule upon the Register to show cause why he should not convey by deed to said R. W. White certain land purchased by said White, viz: the west half of the southeast quarter of section sixteen, township one, range three, south and east, upon the payment to him of the balance of the purchase money due therefor, the Register most respectfully shows cause, as follows, to-wit: On or about December 9, 1850, said White called at the office of the Register and made inquiry about the terms or which he could purchase said tract, and was told that he Ex parte Robert W. White.-Statement of Case. could have it at five dollars per acre. Said White replied in substance that the land was not worth that price and refused to give it unconditionally, but, after much solicitation, persuaded the Register to enter into the arrangement with him evidenced by the following agreement in writing, signed by said White and the Register, to-wit: "R. W. White has this day purchased the west half of the southeast quarter of section sixteen township one, south of range three, east, at five dollars per acre, one quarter of which he has paid and given his notes for the balance, as the law requires; but it is understood that, notwithstanding said sale, said land is to be offered at public sale, and if it shall sell for five dollars per acre, then said White is to take it at that price. If it shall sell for over five, he is to take it or not, as he likes; but if it sells for over two dollars and fifty cents per acre, and under five, he is to take it at that price. [Signed] December 9, 1850." R. W. WHITE, D. S. WALKER. After said White had entered into this written agreement and was about leaving the office of the Register, he remarked in substance, that he presumed he would have the right at any time to enter said land, absolutely, at five dollars per acre, to which the Register replied affirmatively. On or about the 19th December, 1850, the Register received from said White the letter herewith filed and prayed to be taken as part of this answer, stating that he had concluded to take said tract at five dollars per acre, at which it had been originally appraised, instead of waiting for it to be sold under its last appraisement of two dallars and fifty cents per acre. The Register would certainly have acceded to this proposition and have entered said land in said White's name, which has not yet been done, but before he had acted in the matter, one K. M. Moore came to Ex parte Robert W. White.-Opinion of Court. the office of the Register and complained that he had applied to enter said land long before said White, and had been refused the privilege of doing so, on the ground that said tract could not be purchased at private sale until it should first have been offered at public sale at the reduced price, in pursuance of section 6, Thompson's Digest, 115.— Said Moore stated that his application to enter said land was to the predecessor of the present Register in the Register's office, and said Moore also reminded the present Register of a conversation said Moore had with him about the purchase of said land some time since, at Newport, which the Register did not think of at the time of said arrangement with said White. And said Moore insisted that great injustice would be done him, under the circumstances, if said land should not be put up at public auction in pursuance of the written agreement between the said White and the Register, so as to allow said Moore to bid on the same. Under this state of facts the Register informed said White that he felt it his duty to decline to give him a deed, but would adhere to the written agreement herein set forth, or the Register now offers to rescind that agreement altogether, and refund to said White the money he has paid and return him his notes. The case was argued by Papy for the petitioner, and by Walker for the respondent. THOMPSON, Justice, pronounced the opinion of the court. Upon the rule on the Register to show cause why a mandamus nisi should not issue, the question presents itself— Has this court jurisdiction, or the power to entertain this application and award the relief asked for? The 2d section of the 5th article of the Constitution provides that "the Supreme Court, except in cases otherwise directed in this Constitution, shall have appellate jurisdiction only, which shall be co-extensive with the State, un 170 SUPREME COURT. Ex parte Robert W. White.-Opinion of Court. der such restrictions and regulations, not repugnant to the Constitution, as may, from time to time, be prescribed by law; provided, that the said court shall always have power to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and such other remedial and original writs as may be necessary to give it a general superintendence and control of all other courts." Thompson's Digest, 50. It cannot be doubted that this is an application to this court for the exercise of an original jurisdiction; and it is argued for the petitioner, that the section above cited gives the power to this court to issue the writs specially named in all cases as its original jurisdiction, and that the phrase with which the sentence concludes: "as may be necessary to give this court a general superintendence and control of all other courts," is to be restricted to the "other remedial and original writs," not specifically named. And it is further contended that this interpretation is necessary in order to render operative the exception in the first clause of the section, that the Supreme Court except in cases otherwise directed in this Constitution, shall have appellate jurisdiction only;" for, unless the jurisdiction excepted is original and contained in the power to issue the writs specified, there is none given by the Constitution but the appellate jurisdiction, and effect should be given to every part and clause of the instrument. The exception in the first clause of the section under consideration was probably inserted by the Convention ex abundanti cautela, although it would hardly have been necessary, if any original jurisdiction had been granted in any other part of the Constitution to have enabled this court to exercise it. The language is general; it does not refer to any particular grant of jurisdiction; the general character of the court was to be one of appellate authority, and it was to be confined to that, "except in cases otherwise directed." It does not necessarily follow that some other ju |