FLORIDA CENTRAL AND PENINSULAR RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEXANDER ST. CLAIR-ABRAMS, 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.
In this 1895 Florida Supreme Court case, the court affirmed a lower court judgment for possession and damages in an unlawful detainer action. The court struck improper evidence from the appellate record—testimony without a proper bill of exceptions and maps with no foundation—leaving no reviewable issues for appellate consideration.
The court held that testimony copied into the record without a formal bill of exceptions bearing the trial judge's signature cannot be considered as evidence on appeal, even with counsel's stipulation; similarly, maps with no showing they were admitted in evidence at trial have no place in the appellate record.
“There is no bill of exceptions, under the signature of the judge, embodying the testimony as agreed upon by counsel, and without this we can not consider the paper as evidence in the cause.”
Establishes the requirement for a formal bill of exceptions signed by the trial judge to make testimony part of the appellate record, rejecting counsel's mere stipulation as insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 1890, St. Clair-Abrams filed an unlawful entry and detainer action against the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company in Lake Coun…
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 Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Mabry, C. J.:
In October, 1890, appellee commenced in.the .Circuit Court for Lake county an action of unlawful entry and detainer of a certain described lot of land in the-town of Tavares, Lake County, Florida, against appellant, and on the trial obtained a judgment for possession and six hundred dollars damages. An appeal was taken to the January term, 1891, of this court and the transcript of the record was-filed here qn the* '26th of that month. The petition of appeal filed at the time the transcript was filed contains a recital of pleas in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit for Lake County, and after further "reciting the judgment rendered in the cause and the entry of appeal, •states that the inquisition in the case is not true and prays' for an appeal. The petition, ..originally filed here; is the only petition of appeal or assignment of •error in the case.
A motion has been made on the .part of appellee to rstrike from the transcript of the record so much as purports to be the evidence taken on the trial and also the plats or maps filed by appellant on its motion for a new trial in the Circuit Court. This motion must be .granted. There is copied into the record what purports to be the evidence of witnesses examined on the trial of the case in the Circuit Court, and it contains an agreement, signed by counsel of both parties, that it is substantially the testimony used on the trial, and that the same should be used in the record of appeal. There is no bill of exceptions, under the signature of the judge, embodying the testimony as agreed upon by counsel, and without this we can not consider the paper as evidence in the cause. The stipulation of counsel extended no further than that the testimony agreed upon should be used in the record of appeal, and even if it had undertaken to supply the place of a bill of exceptions, we could not so consider it. Pine vs. Anderson, 22 Fla, 330, and authorities cited; Pickett vs. Bryan, 34 Fla.
38. There is no record evidence that the maps copied into the transcript were used in evidence on the trial of the cause or on the motion for a new trial. They have no place in the record. The elimination from the record of what purports to be the evidence and the maps referred to leaves no question that we can review on the petition of appeal.
The sustaining of the motion to strike the papers mentioned from the record disposes of the case and while it is before us a final judgment will be now entered. It is therefore ordered that appellee’s motion be granted and that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Guckenheimer & Sons, 42 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1900)…not authenticated by the signature of the judge. Robinson v. Matthews, 16 Fla. 319; Richardson v. State, 28 Fla. 349, 9 South. Rep. 704; Pickett v. Bryan, 34 Fla. 38, 15 South. Rep. 681; Florida Central and Peninsular R. R. Co. v. St. Clair-Abrams, 35 Fla. 514, 17 South. Rep. 639. In the present case there is not even an agreement of the parties, that the abstract [*21] upon which it is decided correctly states the case as shown by the transcript of the record. The abstract may constitute an agreement on…
-
Anderson v. Winer, 50 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1905)…icated bill of exceptions, it is hereby considered, ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Circuit Court in said cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. St. Clair-Abrams, 35 Fla. 514, 17 South. Rep. 639; Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573. We think it proper in this cause to again remind the judges of the trial courts that it is their exclusive province and duty to settle all disputes as to the happenings in pa…
-
Weeks v. Hays, 55 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1908)…. Anderson, 22 Fla. 330; Glasser, Kuder & Ottensoser v. Hackett, 38 Fla. 84, 20 South. Rep. 820; Bailey v. Clark, 6 Fla. 516; Sams v. King, 18 Fla. 552; Pickett v. Bryan, 34 Fla. 38, 15 South. Rep. 681; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. St. Clair-Abrams, 35 Fla. 514, 17 South. Rep. 639; Mizell v. Travellers’ Ins. Co., 40 Fla. 148, 24 South. Rep. 148; Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 South. Rep. 1022. The third assignment of error questions the correctness of the findings of fact by the referee. The fourth assi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pickett v. Bryan, 34 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1894)
- Robinson v. Matthews, 16 Fla. 319 (Fla. 1878)
- Pine v. Anderson, 22 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1886)