W. A. C. BENBOW, APPELLANT,
v.
MARQUIS & CO., APPELLEES
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 dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to perfect it within the statutory timeframe by filing the required bond late. This case emphasizes the strict adherence to procedural rules for perfecting appeals.
No, the appeal was not perfected within the statutory timeframe. The bond was filed after the thirty-day period had expired.
“The time in which appeals "can- be' taken and perfected” from the Circuit Court to this court is thirty days after the "session of the court” • at which the judgment "was rendered or pronounced.””
This quote establishes the statutory deadline for perfecting an appeal.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 15, 1879, after a judgment was rendered on April 3, 1879. The appeal bond was executed and filed on June…
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.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of replevin in the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa county, tried at Spring Term, A. D. 1879.
It appears from the record that notice of appeal was given on the 15th of May, A. D. 1879, the judgment having been rendered and entered on the 3d of April, 1879. The bond was executed on the 5th of June, 1879, and filed the same day. The time in which appeals "can- be' taken and perfected” from the Circuit Court to this court is thirty days after the "session of the court” • at which the judgment "was rendered or pronounced.” Under the statutes regulating the time at which the terms of the First Circuit are to be held, (Chap. 3117,) the term for Escambia county commences on the second Monday of April, which was the fourteenth 'day of the month, and the regular term for Santa Rosa county, which is the term immediately preceding the term for Escambia, could not have extended be-, yond or have included the first day of the term for Escam-bia. It is therefore clear that under the statute the bond here given could not have been given in thirty days after the session of the court at which the judgment was rendered.
The court could not dispense with the requirement of the statute.
We have frequently held that a bond is necessary to perfect an appeal in judgments at law. The bond here not having been filed in that time, the appeal was not perfected in accordance with law, and for that reason must be dismissed.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Callison v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 82 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1921)…f that plaintiff in error had failed to comply with this provision of the statute. Brown v. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., 25 Fla. 361, 5 South. Rep. 673; Savannah, Florida, etc. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 23 Fla. 308, 2 South. Rep. 667; Benbow v. Marquis & Co., 17 Fla. 236 It follows from what has been said that the motion to dismiss should be granted. Writ of Error dismissed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.…
-
Jackson v. Haisly, 27 Fla. 205 (Fla. 1891)
-
Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Parks C. Hunter, 139 Fla. 803 (Fla. 1939)…3 Fla. 269; 74 So. 479; McClellan v. Wood, 78 Fla. 407; 83 Sou. 295; Simmons v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267, 39 Sou. 77; Eaton v. McCaskill, 53 Fla. 513, 43 Sou. 447; Fitzpatrick v. Turner, 14 Fla. 382, Hull v. Westcott, 17 Fla. 280; Benbow v. Marquis & Co., 17 Fla. 236; City of Orlando v. Hewitt, 92 Fla. 933, 110 Sou. 874. Proceedings to review judgments of civil courts of record are controlled by Chapter 15666, Acts of 1931 (Extra Session), same being Section 5168, (1) to (14) inclusive, Volume 4, Permanent Supp…