JOHN GADSDEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 dismissed a writ of error because it was not made returnable within the statutorily prescribed timeframe, divesting the court of jurisdiction.
No, a writ of error made returnable more than ninety days after its date does not comply with the statute.
“As August 30th is “more than ninety days” from May 30th, “the date of the writ,” the writ of error is not made returnable in compliance with the express provisions of the statute.”
This quote explains the factual basis for the court's decision regarding the writ's return date.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA writ of error was issued on May 30, 1918, and made returnable on August 30, 1918. The relevant statute requires writs of error to be returnable betw…
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.
West, J.
The writ of error in this ease was issued and dated on the 30th day of May, 1918. It was made returnable to the 30th day of August, 1918.
The statute, Chapter 5638, Acts of 1907, Laws of Florida, provides that writs of error “shall be returnable to a day, either in term time or vacation, more than thirty days and not more than ninety days from the date of the writ.” As August 30th is “more than ninety days” from May 30th, “the date of the writ,” the writ of error is not made returnable in compliance with the express provisions of the statute.
.This being true, this court has no jurisdiction of the causé, and it is, therefore, dismissed upon the authority of Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504, 54 South. Rep. 264; Robinson Imp. Co. v. Jackson, 55 Fla. 657, 45 South. Rep. 987; Parker v. Evening News Pub. Co., 54 Fla. 482, 44 South. Rep. 718; Barnett v. Hickson, 48 Fla. 68, 37 South. Rep. 210; Ghira v. Foster, 46 Fla. 196, 35 South. Rep. 876; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508, 26 South. Rep. 704; Payne v. Roche, 41 Fla. 478, 27 South. Rep. 29; Simmons v. State, 40 Fla. 467, 25 South. Rep. 62; Browning v. State, 40 Fla. 466, 25 South. Rep. 62; Spencer v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 39 Fla. 677, 23 South. Rep. 442.
Dismissed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farmers Bank & Tr. Co. v. Power, 90 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1925)…March” was at some time and by some unauthorized person changed to “May.” If issued on March 28, 1925, the writ was invalid because it was made returnable August 20, 1925, more than 90 days from March 28,1925, the date of the writ. Gadsden v. State, 76 Fla. 543, 80 South. Rep. 308. If the writ'was issued May 28th, 1925, and intentionally dated March 28th, 1925, it was ineffectual, and amendment is not permissible after the statutory period to take out a writ of error has expired. Rye v. Banks, 66 Fla. 434,…
-
Picot v. Picot, 127 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1937)…cjunkins v. Stevens, 88 Fla. 559, 102 Sou. Rep. 756; Spencer v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 39 Fla. 677, 23 Sou. Rep. 442; Arnold v. Boyce, 97 Fla. 484; 121 Sou. Rep. 472, 122 Sou. Rep. 117; Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504, 54 Sou. Rep. 264; Gadsden v. State, 76 Fla. 543, 80 Sou. Rep. 308; East Coast Lbr. Co. v. Walter Walten Co., 87 Fla. 326, 100 Sou. Rep. 738; Buck v. All Parties, Etc., 86 Fla. 86, 97 Sou. Rep. 313; Anderson v. State, 73 Fla. 86, 84 Sou. Rep. 6; DeBogery v. Hafleigh, 81 Fla. 631, 88 Sou. Rep. 470.…
-
E. Coast Lumber Co. v. Walter Walton Co., 87 Fla. 326 (Fla. 1924)…1923, which return day being “more than ninety days from the date of the writ,” is in violation of the statute (Sec. 2908, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920) and the writ of error is dismissed. Anderson v. State, 73 Fla. 86, 74 South. Rep. 6; Gadsden v. State, 76 Fla. 543, 80 South. Rep. 308; Robinson Imp. Co. v. Jackson, 55 Fla. 657, 45 South. Rep. 987; Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504, 54 South. Rep. 264, Ayers v. Daniels, 67 Fla. 482, 65 South. Rep. 660. A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Columbia County; M. F.…
Authorities Cited
- Parker v. The Evening News Publ'g Co., 54 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1907)
- Spencer v. The Travelers' Ins. Co., 39 Fla. 677 (Fla. 1897)
- Savannah v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1899)
- Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504 (Fla. 1911)
- Browning v. State, 40 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1898)
- Simmons v. State, 40 Fla. 467 (Fla. 1898)
- Payne v. Roche, 41 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1899)
- Robinson Improvement Co. v. Jackson, 55 Fla. 657 (Fla. 1908)
- Dominga Ghira v. Butler D. Foster, 46 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1903)
- Bion H. Barnett v. Hickson, 48 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1904)