MORTON C. NICHOLS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MARTHA E. WALTON, 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 held that a nunc pro tunc order extending the deadline for filing a bill of exceptions after the term had expired could be valid if it properly memorialized an order that was actually made by the trial judge during the term but inadvertently omitted from the court minutes.
The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is denied. A nunc pro tunc order may properly be entered to correct a mistake in failing to record an order that was actually made by the court during the term, and in the absence of contrary evidence, there is a presumption that the judge made the nunc pro tunc order to effectuate an order that was duly made but omitted from the minutes by mistake.
“An order nunc pro tunc may be made to correct a mistake in failing to enter an order that was actually made.”
Establishes the permissible use of nunc pro tunc orders to record orders that were made but not entered in the minutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bill of exceptions was signed after the expiration of the term at which the trial was had and the verdict was rendered. The defendant in error moved…
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 Presumption Of Regularity cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Defendant in error presents a motion to strike tbe bill of exceptions from tbe transcript of tbe record brought here on writ of error upon the asserted grounds that the bill’of exceptions was made up and signed after the expiration of the term at which the trial was had and the verdict was rendered, “and no special order allowing further time was entered by the trial judge; ’ ’ and in effect because the entry of the nunc pro tunc order after the adjournment of the term extending the time for settling and signing the bill of exceptions is ineffectual to authorize the authentication of the bill of exceptions after the adjournment of the court for the term.
Rule 97 of the Circuit Court Rules in Actions at Law provides that ‘ ‘ The bill of exceptions shall be made up and signed during the term of the court at which the verdict is rendered or trial had, unless by special order further time is allowed. In case such special order is made, it shall be entered in the minutes, and in making up the bill of exceptions the fact that such an order was made shall be mentioned therein, or shall otherwise appear in the record. ’ ’
The motion does not assert that a special order under the rule extending the time after adjournment for the term, for authenticating the bill of exceptions was not in fact made by the court during the term, but merely that such order was not "entered by the trial judge.”
An order nunc pro tunc may be made to correct a mistake in failing to enter an order that was actually made. 15 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 344.
An order can be entered nunc pro tunc to make a record of what was previously done by the court, although not then entered; but where the court has wholly omitted an order, which it might or ought to have made, it cannot afterward be entered nunc pro tunc.” 29 Cyc. 1561.
The motion upon which the nunc pro tunc order was made is not in the transcript, and the nature of the nunc pro turic order does not exclude the idea that a proper order was in fact duly made by the judge in term time and was by inadvertence or otherwise omitted from the minutes of the court; in which case it could properly be entered nunc pro tunc. See Greeley v. Percival; 21 Fla. 428; Stephens v. Hale, 33 Fla. 618, 15 South. Rep. 251.
In the absence of a contrary showing the presumption is that the judge made the nuric pro time order to effectuate an order actually and duly made by him, but which by mistake was omitted from the minutes of the Court.
Motion denied.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, .J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1927)…nally intended and pronounced, it cannot after the expiration of the term be brought in by way of amendment nunc pro tunc or otherwise. Adams v. Higgins, 23 Fla. 13, 1 So. 321; McGriff v. Reid, 37 Fla. 51, 19 So. 339; Nichols v. Walton, 82 Fla. 385, 90 So. 157, 15 R. C. L. 679, 34 Cyc. 235. The second assignment of error must therefore fail. The third assignment of error is based upon the denial by the lower court of a motion for an extension of time within which to file a transcript of the record in thi…
-
Ricou v. Merwin, 94 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1927)…back and take effect as of the date of the judgment, decree, order, writ or other record so corrected, is well settled. Adams v. Higgins, 23 Fla. 13, 1 South. Rep. 321; McGriff v. Reid, 37 Fla. 51, 19 South. Rep. 339; Nichols v. Walton, 82 Fla. 385, 90 South. Rep. 157; Sawyer v. State (Fla.), decided at the present Term, 1927; Wilmerding v. Corbin Banking Co., 126 Ala. 268, 28 South. Rep. 640; 15 R. C. L. 679-682; 21 C. J. 709; 34 Cyc. 235; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. Pleading and Practice 1053. A clerical error in the de…
-
Johns v. State, 144 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1940)…nt order was presented to him, made a verbal order in open court that the same be recorded, and even if it was not actually recorded until several days later, this would not in our judgment make an)*- material difference here. See Nichols v. Walton, 82 Fla. 385, 90 So. 157; Fiehe v. Householder Company, 98 Fla. 627, 125 So. 20. Suffice it to say that here the record filed by appellant does not make it affirmatively appear that the order of assignment was not recorded prior to the filing of the information.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Greeley v. Percival, 21 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1885)
- Stephens v. Hale, 33 Fla. 618 (Fla. 1894)