BENJAMIN F. HILL ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
L. P. WESTCOTT, 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 granted a motion to dismiss an appeal because the appellants failed to file a petition of appeal within the required timeframe and did not request additional time to do so.
Yes, the court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellants failed to comply with the procedural rules for filing a petition of appeal and did not seek an extension.
“The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case is upon the ground that no petition of appeal has been filed within three days after the return of the writ or filing the transcript of tne récoref. Buie 8 of Practice.”
States the grounds for the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants' appeal was submitted at a previous term, and it was discovered that no petition of appeal had been filed. The clerk informed the appel…
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.
The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case is upon the ground that no petition of appeal has been filed within three days after the return of the writ or filing the transcript of tne récoref. Buie 8 of Practice.^
This case was submitted by one of the parties at the last term. It being discovered that no petition of appeal had been filed, the clerk of this court was directed to inform the appellants of this fact.
How, at the hearing of this motion at this term, (the counsel of record on this appeal being present,) there is not even an application made to file a petition. The court should not, as a matter of course, allow further timé to fil# such petition under these circumstances, when such action* is not even requested.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Parks C. Hunter, 139 Fla. 803 (Fla. 1939)…. 718; A. C. L. Ry. Co. v. Holliday, 73 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 (1…