
    William L. ADAMS et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. E. C. BOOZER, Defendant in Error.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 23, 1936.
    C. H. Landefeld, Jr., of Plollywood, for plaintiffs in error.
    Boozer & Boozer, of West Palm Beach, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

The writ of error brings for review judgment awarding peremptory writ of mandamus.

The judgment should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the cases of Treat et al. v. State ex rel., 118 Fla. 899, 160 So. 498; State ex rel. v. Sholtz et al., 119 Fla. 701, 704, 160 So. 872; and City of Bradenton v. State, 117 Fla. 578, 579, 158 So. 165.

It is so ordered. Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

DAVIS, Justice

(concurring).

A party may become bound by a judicial proceeding because he is a party by representation, that is, because his contractual or legal relationship to the nominal parties of record may be ‘ such that whatever binds them will bind him ex proprio rigore. State v. Rose (Fla.) 165 So. 60. Successors in office to officials bound by a peremptory writ of mandamus may, on like principles, become bound by an adjudication against their predecessors in office. So it is not necessary to reopen- the • case merely to make a substitution of respondents as such successors in office where predecessors were bound.  