EUNICE GRAVES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. M. HARRIS & BRO., PARTNERS, 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.
This case clarifies that a writ of error can only be issued from a final judgment that adjudicates the merits of a case. A judgment solely for costs, even after a verdict for the defendant, is not considered a final judgment and therefore cannot support a writ of error.
No, a judgment for costs alone is not a final judgment and therefore cannot support a writ of error. A final judgment must adjudicate the merits of the cause or dispose of the action.
“The statute provides that “writs of error shall lie only from final judgments except” from “orders granting new trials.””
Establishes the statutory basis for the court's review of final judgments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a writ of error based on a judgment entered after a jury verdict for the defendant. The only judgment in the record was for costs …
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 Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The writ of error herein purports to be addressed to a judgment entered in this cause after a verdict for the defendant, but the only judgment in the transcript is “that the defendants, J. M. Harris & Bro., a firm composed of J. M. Harris and E. Harris, do have and recover of and from the plaintiff, Eunice Graves, the sum of twenty-four and 39/100 dollars costs in this suit, and that execution do issue therefor.”
The statute provides that “writs of error shall lie only from final judgments except” from “orders granting new trials.” Sections 1691 and 1695, General Statutes of 1906.
A final judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the cause or disposes of the action.
A judgment for costs alone, though entered for the defendant after a verdict in his favor, will not support a writ of error, since such a judgment does not adjudicate the merits of the cause or dispose of the action, and is consequently not a final judgment. Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla., 353, 33 South. Rep. 982; Dexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 52 Fla. 250, 42 South. Rep. 695.
Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment and no such final judgment as will support a writ of error appears in the transcript, the court should not proceed to consider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for that purpose or not, since, except in case of an order granting a new trial under the statute, a writ of error may properly issue only to a judgment adjudicating the merits of the cause or making a final disposition of tne action in the trial court. Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 250, 53 South. Rep. 503.
Upon the entry of a proper final judgment, a writ of error may issue thereon, and a motion may be made to use the transcripts already here, to which the final judgment and writ of error may be attached by leave of this court. Goldring v. Reid, supra.
The writ of error is dismissed.
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur;
Whitfield, O. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J. concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. v. Crill, 99 Fla. 1012 (Fla. 1930)…la. 214, 55 So. R. 983; S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 47 Fla. 215, 36 So. R. 86; Zaring & Co. v. Humphreys, 68 Fla. 6, 65 So. R. 665; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 So. R. 503) and the Court will not. consider the errors assigned. Graves v. Harris, 61 Fla. 254, 54 So. R. 390; Goldring v. Reid, supra. In the proceeding before us, the plaintiff in error sought to condemn certain land for right of way purposes for a. [*1014] State road, together with a certain quantity of sand to be taken from other land of…
-
Wm. W. Flournoy v. Interstate Elec. Co., 61 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1911)…sider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for that purpose or not. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Bennett, 47 Fla. 215, 36 South. Rep. 86; Goldring v. Reed, 61 Fla. 250, 53 South. Rep. 503; Graves v. Harris, 61 Fla. 254, 54 South. Rep. 390. The rules contemplate that in making up a transcript of the record to be transmitted to the appellate court in response to a writ of error, the judgment to which the writ of error is addressed should be included in the transcri…
Authorities Cited
- Callie Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1903)
- Dexter v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 52 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1906)