STROUSE & BROTHERS, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
T. C. HALL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1911-06-01
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;, Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
62 Fla. 394 Florida Supreme Court (1911) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

— It appears from the transcript that during the trial of the cause the plaintiff announced that on account of a ruling of the court, refusing to admit certain proffered documentary evidence, it would be compelled to take a non-suit. We find nothing in the transcript which even purports to be a final judgment, therefore there is nothing to support a writ of error. See Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 South. Rep. 503, where prior decisions of this court will be found cited.

There being no-final judgment, it necessarily follows that the writ of error must be dismissed. Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Martin v. Clare C. Hosmer, 98 Fla. 485 (Fla. 1929)
    …reupon the defendant took a writ of error. When no final judgment appears in the record proper, the writ of error will be dismissed by the appellate court sua sponte. See Flournoy v. Interstate Elec. Co., 61 Fla. 214, 55 So. R. 983; Strouse v. Hall, 62 Fla. 394, 56 So. R. 946; Zaring v. Humphreys, 68 Fla. 6, 65 So. R. 665. Neither the record proper nor the bill of exceptions discloses either verdict or judgment so the writ of error is dismissed. [*486] It is so ordered. Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., con…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw