BION H. BARNETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
L. T. HICKSON, AS EXECUTOR OF WILLIAM HICKSON, DECEASED, 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 denied a motion to amend a writ of error because it was made returnable within the same term it was issued, which lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was removed from the court's docket.
No, a writ of error issued and made returnable within the same term of court does not confer jurisdiction on the appellate court for amendment or any other purpose.
“The writ of error was issued during the January term, 1904, of this court and was made returnable to a day within said January term, which, under the former decisions here, conferred no jurisdiction [*69] in this court over said cause for the purposes of amendment of the writ or otherwise.”
This quote explains the procedural defect that led to the court's lack of jurisdiction.
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 filed a motion to amend a writ of error that had been issued and recorded during the January term, 1904. The writ was made retu…
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.
Per Curiam.
This cause came on to be heard on motion of the plaintiff in error to amend the writ of error issued and recorded in said cause. The writ of error was issued during the January term, 1904, of this court and was made returnable to a day within said January term, which, under the former decisions here, conferred no jurisdiction in this court over said cause for the purposes of amendment of the writ or otherwise. Driggs, Adm’r, v. Higgins, 19 Fla. 103; Fleming v. Fleming, 40 Fla. 154, 23 South. Rep. 571; Payne v. Roche, 41 Fla. 478, 27 South. Rep. 29; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508, 26 South. Rep. 704. The motion to amend is, therefore, hereby denied and the cause is stricken from the dockets of this court.
Hocker and Cockrell, JJ., being disqualified, took no part in the consideration of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gadsden v. State, 76 Fla. 543 (Fla. 1918)…it is, therefore, dismissed upon the authority of Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504, 54 South. Rep. 264; Robinson Imp. Co. v. Jackson, 55 Fla. 657, 45 South. Rep. 987; Parker v. Evening News Pub. Co., 54 Fla. 482, 44 South. Rep. 718; Barnett v. Hickson, 48 Fla. 68, 37 South. Rep. 210; Ghira v. Foster, 46 Fla. 196, 35 South. Rep. 876; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508, 26 South. Rep. 704; Payne v. Roche, 41 Fla. 478, 27 South. Rep. 29; Simmons v. State, 40 Fla. 467, 25 South. Rep. 62; Browning…
Authorities Cited
- Driggs v. Higgins, 19 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1882)
- Savannah v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1899)
- Fleming v. Fleming, 40 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1898)
- Payne v. Roche, 41 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1899)