EMMETT WASHINGTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 affirmed a lower court's judgment because the appellant failed to present a valid bill of exceptions within the legally prescribed time. Without a proper bill of exceptions, no errors could be considered on appeal.
The appellate court cannot consider errors presented in a bill of exceptions that was not properly and timely settled and signed by the judge. Therefore, no errors could be considered on appeal.
“the said bill of exceptions was not presented to, or settled, signed, or certified by, the Circuit Judge within the time prescribed by law, nor within the time allowed therefor by the special order of the Circuit Judge”
Establishes the procedural defect in the bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Emmett Washington, appealed a judgment from the lower court. The Attorney-General moved to strike the bill of exceptions from the recor…
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 Affirmance Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause coming on to be heard upon motion by the Attorney-General to strike out from the record the bill of exceptions signed by the Circuit Judge and incorporated as a part of the record in the case, and it appearing to the court from the record that the said bill of exceptions was not presented to, or settled, signed, or certified by, the Circuit Judge within the time prescribed by law, nor within the time allowed therefor by the special order of the Circuit Judge, it is, therefore, ordered that the said bill of exceptions incorporated as a part of the transcript of record in said cause is stricken from the said record, and shall no longer be considered as any part thereof.
It further appearing to the court that no error or question has been presented or assigned in said cause for or upon any matter other than is contained in said stricken bill of exceptions, or that could be properly considered otherwise than through a bill of exceptions, the judgment of the court below in said cause is affirmed. Horn v. State, 40 Fla. 472, 24 South. Rep. 147.
The record showing that the defendant has shown himself by affidavit to be insolvent, the costs to be taxed against the county of Washington.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)…nd authenticated within the time prescribed by law, or they do not become a part of the record, even though copied into the transcript, and cannot be considered by the appellate court. 2 R. C. L. 144; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 So. 573; Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1, 38 So. 511; Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33, 53 So. 450; Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646, 94 So. 505; Granquist v. State, 86 Fla. 32, 97 So. 205; Lanier v. Shayne, 85 Fla. 212, 95 So. 617; Preston v. The State…
-
State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)…wed after the adjournment of court for the settlement and signing of a bill of exceptions, therefore what occurred in pais at the hearing of this cause is not properly nor authoritatively nor legally certified to this court. See Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 South. Rep. 906; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 825; Bardin v. L’Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Potsdamer v. State of Florida, 17 Fla. 895; Bush v. State, 21 Fl…
-
Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1922)…thority, and the bill of exceptions having been presented to the trial court after the expiration of the further time allowed by the original special order can not be considered as part of the record. Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573; Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1, 38 South. Rep. 511; Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33, 53 South. Rep. 450. There being no bill of exceptions in the record, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is no…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Horn v. State, 40 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1898)