JOSEPH DAWKINS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CURTIS CARROLL, 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 held that a Writ of Error does not lie to an order granting a new trial in a law case, despite statutory language allowing such orders to be assigned as error. The court reasoned that permitting interlocutory appeals would delay cases and defeat justice, and that appeals in law cases must await final judgment.
A Writ of Error does not lie to an order granting a new trial; such orders may only be assigned as error upon a subsequent appeal from the final judgment in the case. The statutory language permitting such orders to be assigned as error contemplates review upon final appeal, not immediate interlocutory review.
“It was not the design of the Legislature, as we conceive, in the passage of the act of 1852-'3, "in addition to and amendatory of the several acts concerning Writs of Error and Appeals to the Supreme Court," to allow a Writ of Error to an order granting a new trial.”
States the core holding that writs of error do not lie to orders granting new trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff in Error Dawkins sought a Writ of Error from an order granting a new trial in a Circuit Court proceeding. The dispute centered on whether th…
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 Legislative Intent Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
BALTZELL, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the.Court.
It was not the design of the Legislature, as we conceive, in the passage of the act of 1852-’3, “ in addition to and amendatory of the several acts concerning Writs of Error and Appeals to the Supreme Court,” to allow a Writ of Error to an order granting a new trial. That act provider “ that orders and judgments wherein the Circuit Court shall allow and grant, or shall refuse to allow and grant any motion for a new trial, or any motion to amend the pleadings, or to file new and additional pleadings, or to amend the record of any cause during the term of the Court at which it was determined, or shall refuse to allow and grant a motion for the continuance of the cause, shall and may he assigned for matter and cause of error, upon any writ of error sued out, or appeal taken to the Supreme Court.”
By the original act, an Appeal or Writ of Error lies only to a final judgment, and it is upon the trial of a case so brought up that the grant or refusal of any or all these motions may with propriety be determined. To allow the appeal during the progress of the case, as the pleadings are amended, or a motion for a new trial, or a continuance is granted or refused, would be to protract and delay a case, at the caprice of either party, to the almost entire defeat of justice. We are not aware of any such course in any of the States where these orders are the subject of revision ; indeed, are confident that the opposite practice universally prevails.
In the succeeding section of the same act, we find a pro. vision “ that appeals ma/y he taken and prosecuted from, any interlocutory order, decision, judgment, or decree of the Circiut Court, sitting as Courts of Equity.” Why this change of language, unless to intimate a different purpose on the part of the Legislature in the two classes of cases ?
The Writ of Error will be dismissed, with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. The Presbyterian Church of Gainesville, 13 Fla. 592 (Fla. 1869)
-
L. A. Hardee & Co. v. Langford, 6 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1855)