CHARLES W. RUSH, AS EXECUTOR OF JOHN L. RUSH, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. E. CONNER, DEFENDANT 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error for failure to timely file the transcript of record within the term to which the writ was returnable, finding that the plaintiff in error was chargeable with laches despite having no delay in settling exceptions.
The court held that laches is chargeable to the plaintiff in error for failure to file the transcript within the term of the court to which the writ was returnable, and dismissed the writ of error at the cost of the plaintiff in error.
“The court is satisfied that no laches is attributable to the plaintiff in error or his counsel for failure to make up and file such transcript prior to and up to the thirtieth day of October, 1897, on which day the bills of exceptions in the case were, without laches of the plaintiff in error, settled and signed by the Circuit Judge”
Establishes that there was no delay in the initial phase of preparing the appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA writ of error was issued on May 12, 1897, returnable to June 19, 1897 (within the June term). The Circuit Judge settled and signed bills of exceptio…
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 Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The writ of error in this cause was issued on May l2th, 1897, returnable to the nineteenth day of June following, a day within the June term, 1897, of this court. The transcript of record therein was not filed until the eleventh day of January, 1898, after the close of said June term, 1897. The defendant in error moved on January 24th, 1898, to dismiss the writ of error on the ground, among others, that the transcript of the record was not filed on the return day of the writ of error, nor within the term of this court to which such writ was made returnable. The court is satisfied that no laches is attributable to the plefintiff in error or his counsel for failure to make up and file such transcript prior to’ and up to the thirtieth day of October, 1897, on which day the bills, of exceptions in the case were, without laches of the plaintiff in error, settled and signed by the Circuit Judge, but it appears that the written directions to the clerk for making up the transcript required him to commence making up such-transcript on the twenty-second day of November, 1897, and no sufficient showing has been made as to why the ¡said transcript—containing but fifty-eight pages of type-written matter—was not and could not have been perfected and filed during the forty-nine days that remained of the said June term, 1897, of this court subsequent to the said twenty-second day of November,, 1897, from which1 we conclude that lachas; is chargeable to the plaintiff in error for failure to file such transcript within the term of this court to which his writ of error was made returnable, and it is, therefore, ordered that the writ of error in said cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505; Fayolle v. Texas & P. R. Co., 124 U. S. 519, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 588.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1878)
- Fayolle v. Tex. & Pac. R.R. Co., 124 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1888)