M. M. MORRISON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. J. MCCASKILL AND R. E. L. MCCASKILL, PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF J. J. MCCASKILL & CO., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error because no final judgment had been rendered in the lower court, making the appeal premature. The court cited several prior cases establishing the requirement for a final judgment to support a writ of error.
No, a writ of error does not lie when no final judgment has been rendered in the lower court. The appeal is premature.
“there was no final judgment rendered in said cause frdm which writ of error would lie”
Establishes the primary reason for dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error (appellant) sought review of a case via a writ of error. The defendants in error (appellees) were partners in a business. The c…
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.
This cause coming on for final adjudication before Division A of the court upon the transcript of the record and briefs of counsel for the respective parties, upon due consideration the court finds that there was no final judgment rendered in said cause frdm which writ of error would lie, and it is, therefore, hereby considered, ordered and adjudged that' the writ of error in said cause be, and the same is hereby dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Harrison v. Thurston, 11 Fla. 307; Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325; Ropes v. Eldridge, 39 Fla. 47, 21 South. Rep. 570; Johnson, Daniels & Co. v. Polk County, 24 Fla. 28, 3 South. Rep. 414; Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. supra; 35 South. Rep. 982; Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Jackson County Mill Co., 46 Fla. 236, 35 South. Rep. — ; Heinberg Brothers v. Thompson, 46 Fla. 242, 35 South. Rep. —; Marsh v. Bennett, 46 Fla. 241, 35 South. Rep. —.
Taylor, C. J., and Hocker and Shackleford, JJ., concur. Carter, P. J., and Maxwell and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGeachy v. Bush, 55 Fla. 340 (Fla. 1908)…his court. This is not such a final judgment as' will support a [*341] writ of error, being a judgment for costs alone, as has been repeatedly adjudicated by this court. See Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Morrison v. McCaskill, 46 Fla. 233, 35 South. Rep. 877, and authorities there cited; Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Jackson county Mill Co., 46 Fla. 236, 35 South. Rep. 877; Flaynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348, 35 South. Rep. 3; Cobb v. County of Santa Rosa, 47 Fla. 135, 36 South. Re…
Authorities Cited
- Callie Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1903)
- O. v. Gates, 22 Fla. 325 (Fla. 1886)
- Ephraim Harrison v. Thurston & Buist, 11 Fla. 307 (Fla. 1867)
- Johnson v. Polk Cnty., 24 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1888)
- Ropes v. Eldridge, 39 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1897)
- Birmingham Tr. & Sav. Co. v. Jackson Cnty. Mill Co., 46 Fla. 236 (Fla. 1903)
- Reubin Marsh v. Porter S. Bennett, 46 Fla. 241 (Fla. 1903)
- Heinberg Bros. v. Thompson, 46 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1903)
- Perry v. Florida V. Bush, 46 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1903)