JOHNSON, DANIELS & CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE COUNTY OF POLK, APPELLEE, AND E. A. BRANTLEY, APPELLANT, VS. THE COUNTY OF POLK, 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 addressed procedural compliance issues in two consolidated appeals by Johnson, Daniels & Co. and E. A. Brantley against Polk County. The court ruled that appellants must comply with Rule 21, which requires a deposit of $15 or security for Clerk's costs, or face dismissal of their appeals.
The court held that formal assignments of errors were properly filed in the transcripts, defeating that ground for dismissal. However, the court upheld Rule 21 as valid and enforceable, giving appellants twelve days to comply with the deposit or security requirement or face dismissal of their appeals.
“The authority of the court to make Rule 21 was settled in Robinson vs. Roberts, 16 Fla., 126.”
Establishes that Rule 21 requiring deposits or security for Clerk's costs is a valid and established court rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo appeals were filed against Polk County and docketed in the Florida Supreme Court in July, after being returnable to the June term. The appellee mo…
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 Dismissal Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Raney
delivered the opinion of the court:
The appellee moves in each of these cases to docket and dismiss on the ground that no assignment of errors has been filed, and the further ground that appellant has not complied with Rule 21 which requires of the appellant a deposit of $15, or security by bond, or recognizance, for payment of the Clerk’s costs. There is in each transcript a formal assignment of errors, which counsel for appellee overlooked, doubtless because such assignments are ordinarily filed in civil cases separately from the transcript. This ground is therefore not tenable.
The authority of the court to make Rule 21 was settled in Robinson vs. Roberts, 16 Fla., 126. The Supreme Court of the United States, which has a substantially similar rule, makes a refusal by appellant to comply with its terms the ground of dismissal on motion of appellee. Ownings vs. Turman, 10 Peters, 447; Van Renslaer vs. Watt, 7 How., 784; Selma & M. R. R. Co. vs. La. N. Bk., 94 U. S., 253. This record was filed in this court in July last,, the appeals having been returnable to the June term.
It is a valid rule and appellees should neither have to provide for docketing appeals, nor be delayed by the refusal or continued omission of appellants to do so. If the Clerk sees fit to docket a case without requiring the deposit or other security it is of no concern to any one else.
An order will be entered that the cases stand dismissed in the event the rule is not complied with in twelve days from the entry of the order. This course is just, and not without precedent. Ownings vs. Turman, supra. It will be so ordered, and the Clerk will notify the appellants, through mail of such order at once.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Polk Cnty., 24 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1888)
Authorities Cited
- Van Rensselaer v. Executors, 7 How. 784 (U.S. 1849)
- Owings v. Lessee, 10 Pet. 447 (U.S. 1836)
- Selma & Meridian R.R. Co. v. La. Nat'l Bank of New Orleans, 94 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1876)