R. M. WHITEHEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
BRADFORD & ROSS, 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 citation was not served within the statutorily required timeframe before the court term. This case clarifies procedural rules for timely appeal entries and citation service.
No, the appeal was not properly before the court. The citation was not served within the required timeframe, necessitating its dismissal.
“The appeal not having been entered within thirty days before the first day of the term, the citation should have been issued and served at least twenty-five days before such day.”
This quote explains the core legal requirement that led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn appeal was entered on October 31st, and the citation was issued on January 1st, 1891, and served on January 3rd. The court term began on January 13…
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.
[*476] Rasjey, C. J.:
This is an appeal in an action at law, and was entered on the 31st day of October last, and the citation was issued on the first day of the present month, January 1891, and served on the third day. Motion is-made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the citation was not served twenty-five days before the first day of the present term, which was the thirteenth (13th) day of this month. The appeal not having been entered within thirty days before the first day of the term, the citation should have been issued and served at least twenty-five days before such day. Circuit Court Rule 101; McClellan’s Digest, -sec. 2, p. 843; Randall vs. Jacksonville Street R. R. Co., 19 Fla., 409. Had the appeal been entered within thirty days before the first day of the term, it might have been made returnable to a day in term admitting of twenty days’ notice. The statute construed in Randall vs. Jacksonville is as applicable to common law as it is to equity causes.
The appeal is dismissed.