H. L. ANDERSON AS RECEIVER, OF THE SILVER SPRINGS RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ANDREW A. WINER AND SYDNEY R. WHALEY, 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 affirmed the Circuit Court judgment and struck improperly certified bills of exceptions and stenographer's notes from the appellate record, holding that trial judges have the exclusive duty to authoritatively certify bills of exceptions and that appellate courts cannot review factual disputes without properly authenticated bills.
The appellate court held that defectively certified bills of exceptions and uncertified stenographer's notes should be stricken from the record, and that trial judges have the exclusive duty to authoritatively certify bills of exceptions. Without a properly authenticated bill of exceptions, the appellate court cannot consider questions of fact or matters occurring in pais.
“it is their exclusive province and duty to settle all disputes as to the happenings in pais in a cause tried before them, and to authoritatively certify bills of exception containing them to be used in appellate proceedings”
Establishes the trial judge's exclusive authority and duty regarding certification of evidence for 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 receiver for the Silver Springs Railroad Company brought an action against Andrew A. Winer and Sydney R. Whaley. The plaintiff in error appealed and…
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 Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause came on to be heard before the court en banc, upon motion of the defendants in error to strike from the transcript of record what purports to be an ordinary bill of exceptions and an evidentiary bill of exceptions and the notes of the stenographer who took the evidence in the cause. Upon examination of the transcript of record the court finds that the certificates of the Circuit Judge appended to the ordinary bill of exceptions and to the evidentiary bill of exceptions are so informal, irregular and defective as to amount to no au thoritative certification thereof at all, and will not warrant this court in treating them as authenticated bills of exceptions, and that the stenographer’s notes of what purports to have been the testimony in the cause embodied in the transcript is not certified by the judge at all, and should not, therefore, have been embodied in the transcript, it is, therefore, hereby ordered that the motion of the defendants in error to strike said bills of exceptions and said stenographer’s notes from the transcript of the record, be and the same is hereby granted; and upon further examination it appearing to the court that no question or assignment of error is made, raised or presented upon any matter that can be considered by an appellate court otherwise than through or upon a properly authenticated bill of exceptions, it is hereby considered, ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Circuit Court in said cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, at the cost of the plaintiff in error. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. St. Clair-Abrams, 35 Fla. 514, 17 South. Rep. 639; Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573.
We think it proper in this cause to again remind the judges of the trial courts that it is their exclusive province and duty to settle all disputes as to the happenings in pais in a cause tried before them, and to authoritatively certify bills of exception containing them to be used in appellate proceedings, and to see to it that the bills of exceptions that they certify correctly and truly state such matters in pais as they really occurred, and that the appellate court has no power or authority to determine or settle disputes or contentions as to the correctness or incorrectness of tbe statements of the evidence or any other matter in pais as set forth in a bill of exceptions, but is limited and confined in its consideration of any question or happening in pais to the statement of such question or occurrence as It is contained in a bill of exceptions duly and properly certified and signed by the trial judge, or as it is expressed in the case of Merchants’ Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Grunthal, 38 Fla. 93, 20 South. Rep. 809; “The only evidence for an appellate court as to matters that appear of record is the record proper, duly certified by the clerk of the court who is the custodian of them; and, as to matters not of record, or in pais, the judge’s certificate to a bill of exceptions containing them is the only evidence.”
All the Justices concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cornelius, 100 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1930)…ich are “substantially correct,” it becomes a ministerial act and duty, not necessarily involving the exercise of a judicial discretion, to approve and sign it. High’s Extraordinary Legal Remedies (3d Ed.) Sec. 210. Also Sec. 24. Anderson v. Winter, 50 Fla. 177, 39 So. R. 31. As to whether the bill of exceptions was “presented” within the sixty days allowed by the’ trial court, the record shows that the motion for new trial was heard and denied on August 17, 1928, and the defendant was allowed “sixty days…1 / 2
-
DeSoto Holding Co. v. Boyer, 85 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1923)…eptions which is stricken, there remains no matter presented for review, therefore the judgment be and is hereby affirmed. Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1, 38 South. Rep. 511; Horn v. State, 40 Fla. 472, 24 South. Rep. 147; Anderson v. Winner & Whaley, 50 Fla. 177, 39 South. Rep. 31; Lasseter & Co. v. Zapf, 57 Fla. 89, 48 South. Rep. 749; Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33, 53 South. Rep. 450. Affirmed. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, Browne, West, and Terrell, JJ., concur.…
-
The Citizens Bank of Williston v. Williams, 91 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1926)…ll disputes as to the happenings in pais and to state truly such matters to be contained.in such bills. Bills of exceptions so certified and signed cannot be averred against, altered or amended in the appellate court. See Anderson v. Winer & Whaley, 50 Fla. 177, 39 South, Rep. 31; Sartain, Dobson & Reese v. Bay County, 87 Fla. 231, 99 South. Rep. 558. From anything appearing to the contrary in the- record, duly certified and transmitted to this court under its rules and the statutes governing appellate pr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Merchs. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville v. Isadore Grunthal, 38 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1896)
- Emmett Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62 (Fla. 1904)
- Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. St. Clair-Abrams, 35 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1895)