PITTSBURG STEEL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. D. STREETY, 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 court dismissed the appeal because the writ of error was issued before a final judgment was entered, rendering it ineffectual. A new writ of error would be required to review the subsequently entered nunc pro tunc judgment.
No, a writ of error issued before the existence of a final judgment is ineffectual and cannot be used to review a judgment subsequently rendered nunc pro tunc.
“The plaintiff in error now presents a certified copy of a final judgment nunc pro tunc in the cause dated October 28,1910, signed by the trial judge, in which it is stated that judgment was rendered on the verdict, but was not entered by the clerk, and leave is asked to amend the transcripts of the record by inserting therein the judgment dated October 28th, 1910, and to file briefs.”
Describes the procedural situation where a judgment was entered after the initial appeal was initiated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA verdict was rendered for the defendant, but no final judgment was entered. A writ of error was issued, and later, a final judgment nunc pro tunc was…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The transcript of the record filed herein June 11th, 1910, contains a verdict for the defendant, J. D. Streety, rendered November 3rd, 1909, and also a writ of error dated May 3rd, 1910, returnable June 11th, 1910, addressed to a judgment in the cause; but no final judgment appears. The plaintiff in error now presents a certified copy of a final judgment nunc pro tunc in the cause dated October 28,1910, signed by the trial judge, in which it is stated that judgment was rendered on the verdict, but was not entered by the clerk, and leave is asked to amend the transcripts of the record by inserting therein the judgment dated October 28th, 1910, and to file briefs. The writ of error purports to be issued to a final judgment, but if there was no final judgment in existence when the writ of error was issued it is ineffectual and cannot be used to bring to the appellate court for review a final judgment nunc pro tuno subsequently rendered. A judgment in an action at law is rendered where it is entered or recorded in thfe minutes of the court during term time or when in vacation it is put in form for such entry or record and is signed by the judge.
In this case it appears that the final judgment was not entered or recorded in the minutes of the court when the trial was had, but it was put in form for entry or record and signed by the judge on October , 1910. In order to bring this judgment here for review a writ of error should be issued addressed thereto “within six months from the date of said judgment.” Sec. 1699 Gen. Stats.; Eaton v. McCaskill, 53 Fla. 513, 43 South. Rep. 447; Simmons v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267, 39 South. Rep. 77, 7 Ann. Cas. 322.
Upon the issuance of a writ of error to the judgment, leave may be asked to use the transcripts now here. See Goldring v. Reed, decided at this term.
The application to attach the certified copy of the final judgment to the transcript of the record will be continued in the absence of a writ of error addressed to the final judgment.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. State, 100 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1930)…he judgment or order of the court and its date were. But even where such a rule prevails, if the court has previously announced or rendered its decision, the entry may be made nunc pro tunc.” This rule was followed in Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Streety, 60 Fla. 183, 53 So. R. 505, wherein this Court said: “A judgment in an action at law is rendered Avhen it is entered or recorded in the minutes of the court during term time or when in vacation it is put in form for such entry or record and is signed by the jud…1 / 2
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Holliday, 73 Fla. 269 (Fla. 1917)…he judge, in term or vacation, which shall be signed by the judge before the adjournment of the term.” See McClerkin v. State, 20 Fla. 879; Simmons v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267, text 270, 39 South. Rep. 77, 7 Ann. Cas. 267; Pittsburg Steel Co., v. Streety, 60 Fla. 183, 53 South. Rep. 505. The better practice, as a general rule, would be for [*276] the entry of a judgment rendered in term time to follow the verdict in the minutes of the court, as the date thereof would then be readily apparent, which is important,…
-
State v. Chillingworth, 106 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1932)…final judgment by the Court. The following cases are very persuasive to the contrary; Ropes v. Eldridge, 39 Fla. 47, 21 So. 570; Ropes v. Lansing, 49 Fla. 225, 38 So. 177; Carlson v. Zihone, 51 Fla. 226, 40 So. 502; Pitts-burg Steel Co. v. Streety, 60 Fla. 183, 53 So. 505; Edwards v. Davenport, 11 Ala. App. 423, 66 So. 878; Mizell Live Stock Co. vs. McCaskill Co., 58 Fla. 118, 49 So. 501 ; Ellis v. State, 100 So. 27, 106, 69 A. L. R. 783. The entry was a statement on the minutes that the case “was dismiss…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simmons v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1905)
- Eaton v. McCaskill, 53 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1907)