REBECCA WRIGHT ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
REBECCA WRIGHT ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
32 Fla. 472
Florida Supreme Court (1893)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
Raney, C. J.:
The Judge of the Fifth Circuit issued a writ of ha-beas corpus, and on hearing remanded the petitioners, Rebecca Wright and Lizzie Murry, for trial before the Criminal Court of Record for Marion county. To this judgment the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Marion county issued a writ of error returnable before this court on the 27th day of October, ultimo. There was no allowance or grant of the writ by this court; nor by any of its justices, or the Circuit Judge, as provided by Section 1780, Rev. Stat.,- and consequently the writ is a nullity, and we have no jurisdiction of the cause. It will be dismissed at the cost of the petitioners.
Judgment accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1908)…It is essential that the writ of 'error be granted by the judge who heard the cause, -or by a Justice of the Supreme Court, 'as required by tlhe statute. See State ex rel. Porter v. Vinzant, 49 Fla. 130, 38 South. Rep. 366; [*381] Wright v. State, 32 Fla. 472, 14 South. Rep. 43. See also Ex parte Cox, 44 Fla. 537, 33 South. Rep. 509, 61 L. R. A. 734_ _ The defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error because it was not served according to 'law or filed ir; the office of the clerk of thle circui…
-
Roach v. Keep, 73 Fla. 1048 (Fla. 1917)…issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, without the allowance thereof- either by. the judge who heard the cause or by a justice of the Supreme Court, is a nullity. State ex rel. Porter v. Vinzant, 49 Fla. 130, 38 South. Rep. 366; Wright v. State, 32 Fla. 472, 14 South. Rep. 43; Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 South. Rep. 834, text 380. While the plaintiff in error was entitled to a writ of error, an order granting it is necessary under the statute. Dismissed. [*1050] Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackl…
-
McKinley Freeman v. Blackburn, 92 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1957)…appeal and that through omission or inadvertence the said order was not recorded, nor does it show that permission was given to take the appeal as the statute requires. State ex rel. Brister v. Brister, 158 Fla. 662, 29 So. 2d 699; Wright v. State, 32 Fla. 472, 14 So. 43; State ex rel. Wilson v. Quigg, 154 Fla. 348, 17 So. 2d 697. The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to supply an omission in the record of action previously done which omission was made through inadvertence or mistake. Perkins v. Haywood…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence