ROBERT E. CARTER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN N. C. STOCKTON, 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 granted a motion to strike a bill of exceptions because it was not presented to the trial judge within the extended time limit. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
No, the bill of exceptions was not presented within the allowed time. Therefore, the motion to strike the bill of exceptions is granted.
“The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is granted.”
Establishes the court's ruling on the motion regarding the bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted an additional thirty days for the presentation of a bill of exceptions after the term's adjournment. The court adjourned on Ma…
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.
Pee Curiam.
A motion is made to strike the bill of exceptions in this cause upon the ground that it was not presented to the trial judge for authentication within the time allowed by the special order granting thirty days additional time for the presentation of the bill of exceptions. The extension of time was for thirty days after the final adjournment of the court for the term. See Lamb v. State, 50 Fla., 106, 38 South. Rep., 906.
The court adjourned for the term March 30th, 1910. On April 30th, 1910, the bill of exceptions was left at the office of the circuit judge, but it was not delivered to or seen by him till May 2nd, 1910, when he signed it. Even if leaving the bill of exceptions at the office of the judge could be regarded as a proper presentation to the judge, the thirty days additional time allowed for the presentation expired-with April 29th, 1910, and a presentation to the judge after that time was too late.' The proposed bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge for authentication within the time allowed by the court by virtue of Eule 97 of the Circuit Court Eules. and the presentation and authentication after the expiration of the time granted is ineffectual.
The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is granted. Bush v. State, 21 Fla., 569; Bowden v. Wilson, 21 Fla., 165.
The assignment of errors is confined to matters that exist only in the bill of exceptions and as the bill of exceptions is stricken, the judgment must be affirmed. Anderson v. Winer & Whaley, 50 Fla., 177, 39 South. Rep. 31; Lassiter & Co. v. Zapf, 57 Fla., 89, 48 South. Rep., 749.
It is so ordered.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)…e 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, 86 Fla. 476, 98 So. 358. In the absence of some reasonable showing why the bill of…
-
Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1922)…he 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 not presented. The judgment is affirmed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur…
-
DeSoto Holding Co. v. Boyer, 85 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1923)…reby 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.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569 (Fla. 1885)
- Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1905)
- Bowden v. Wilson, 21 Fla. 165 (Fla. 1885)
- Anderson v. Winer, 50 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1905)
- Lasseter v. Zapf, 57 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1909)