CALVIN L. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN O. MATTHEWS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment because the appellant failed to properly present a bill of exceptions, which is required for appellate review. The court emphasized the statutory requirement for a judge's signature on such documents.
No, a bill of exceptions must be signed by the judge to be considered by the appellate court, even if counsel agrees to waive the signature.
“The statutes of this State and the uniform practice of this court require that a bill of exceptions, to be available in this court, must be signed by the judge.”
Establishes the core legal requirement for a bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant presented a purported bill of exceptions to the appellate court that was not signed by the judge. Instead, it was an original paper file…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bill Of Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
What purports to be a record of this case is a certified copy of the record of the Circuit Court, and unattached and separate therefrom we find an original paper filed in this court purporting to be a bill of exceptions. This paper has attached to it an agreement as follows:
“ It is agreed that the signature of judge be waived, and that the bill of exceptions herein filed shall be good and effectual for all purposes.
“J. C. Maect, Attorney for Appellant.
“ Jas. M. Baker, Attorney for Appellee.”
The statutes of this State and the uniform practice of this court require that a bill of exceptions, to be available in this court, must be signed by the judge. In the case of Proctor vs. Hart, (5 Fla., 470,) this court held that the judge alone (except in case of his refusal, which is provided for in the statute, Thomp. Dig., 351, §3,) is authorized to attest a bill of exceptions; and in Tompkins vs. Eason, (8 Fla., 15,) this court remarked that to commend evidence to the consideration of the appellate court, it must be incorporated into a bill of exceptions, attested as is provided for by the statute.
Even in those States where the practice has been for counsel to sign special or agreed cases on trials at law, such agreed ease must be spread at large upon the i’ecord as constituting the only legitimate ground for the action of the court. 16 Pet., 301. In all such cases it is necessary that such statement must in some manner be made a part of the record of the judgment of the Circuit Court. 1 Wall., 102.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burroughs v. State, 17 Fla. 643 (Fla. 1880)
-
Smith v. Guckenheimer & Sons, 42 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1900)…onville v. Lawson, 16 Fla. 321. And in many cases where the parties voluntarily agreed upon the evidence used in the court below, this court refused to consider it because it was not authenticated by the signature of the judge. Robinson v. Matthews, 16 Fla. 319; Richardson v. State, 28 Fla. 349, 9 South. Rep. 704; Pickett v. Bryan, 34 Fla. 38, 15 South. Rep. 681; Florida Central and Peninsular R. R. Co. v. St. Clair-Abrams, 35 Fla. 514, 17 South. Rep. 639. In the present case there is not even an agreement…
-
Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1892)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence