MCIVER & CHAMBERLAIN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM G. MARSHALL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR; COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, VS. STATE EX REL. PATTON ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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.
This case clarifies the procedural requirements for obtaining a writ of error in Florida, distinguishing between ordinary civil actions, criminal cases, and habeas corpus proceedings. It explains when a judicial order is necessary and when a writ can be obtained as a matter of right.
In ordinary civil actions at law, a writ of error is a matter of right for a defendant, but a plaintiff must pay accrued costs and post a bond. For criminal cases and habeas corpus cases, a judicial order is required to issue a writ of error.
“It is not necessary (nor is it proper practice) to have such an order to entitle either an original plaintiff, or a defendant, to a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court in an ordinary civil action at law.”
Establishes that a judicial order is not required for a writ of error in ordinary civil actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceApplications were made for writs of error to review judgments from the Circuit Court. The court considered the procedural rules governing the issuance…
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 Supersedeas cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Raney
delivered the opinion of the court:
In each of the above causes an application has been made during the present term to a Justice of this court for an order allowing a writ of error. It is not necessary (nor is it proper practice) to have such an order to entitle either an original plaintiff, or a defendant, to a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court in an ordinary civil action at law. A defendant in such an action is entitled to a writ of error as a matter of right, without even paying costs which have accrued up to the time of applying for the writ; but an original plaintiff in the Circuit Court must, to obtain such a writ, pay all costs which have accrued in and about the suit up to the time of applying for the writ, and must also enter into bond, with one or more sureties, in a sum sufficient to cover all the costs which may accrue in the prosecution of the writ, conditioned to pay the same if the judgment shall be affirmed. Secs. 4 and 5, p. 447, Thomp. Dig. Such writs are issued by the Clerk of this court, or by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, in which the judgment has been rendered. Sec. 4, ibid.
When, however, it is desired to have a writ of error in a civil action operate as a supersedeas to the judgment which it is sought to have reviewed, an order to be made in the manner provided by the statute, and bond with surety, are requisite to give the writ this effect, but not to simply obtain the writ. Ibid.
As to the condition of supersedeas bonds see last paragraph of the opinion in Simmons vs. Spratt, 22 Fla., 370, 374.
In criminal cases writs of error do not issue without a judicial order allowing them. State vs. Newman, 24 Fla., 33; s. c. 3 So. Reptr., 467; McC.’s Dig., sec. 4, p. 455, and sec. 11, pp. 456-7. This is also true of writs of error in habeas corpus cases, yet the practice in proceedings on error in such cases is regulated by the habeas corpus act, and not by the general statute governing writs of error in criminal cases. Sec. 12, p. 565, McC.'s Digest; Tyler vs. Painter, 16 Fla., 144.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Johns, 37 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1896)…ts that had accrued up to the time of the issuance of the writ, and, besides, by giving a bond to secure the payment of all future costs that might accrue in the appellate court. McClellan's Digest, sec. 3, p. 840; McIver & Chamberlain vs. Marshall, 24 Fla. 42, 4 South. Rep. 563; Florida Orange Hedge Fence Co. vs. Branham & Co., 27 Fla. 526, 8 South. Rep. 841. But since the adoption of the Revised Statutes the provision obliging an original plaintiff to give bond to secure future costs before he could obt…
-
Fla. Orange Hedge Fence Co. v. A. G. Branham & Co., 27 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1891)
Authorities Cited
- Tyler v. Painter, 16 Fla. 144 (Fla. 1877)
- State ex rel. v. Newman, 24 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1888)
- Eliza Simmons v. Spratt, 22 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1886)