VICTOR R. SMITH, BURGESS SMITH, CARLTON Y. SMITH, T. M. FOSTER AND F. R. CARLTON, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS FLORIDA SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
BARNEY DILLARD AND D. H. HENLEY, LATE PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS DILLARD-HENLEY DRUG COMPANY, DEFENDANTS 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 denied a motion to dismiss a writ of error where the defendants failed to timely object to the plaintiffs' failure to pay accrued costs before issuance of the writ. The court held that by waiting over three months to file the motion and allowing the plaintiffs to pay the costs and file briefs without protest, the defendants waived their statutory right to challenge the writ on this ground.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that defendants in error waived their statutory right to challenge the writ of error by failing to make a timely objection. Although the statute allows dismissal on grounds of unpaid costs, this protection may be waived, and the defendants' delay of more than three months combined with the plaintiffs' subsequent payment of costs and filing of briefs constituted a waiver.
“The latter provision (of sec. 2908 Rev. Gen'. Stat.) is for the benefit of the defendant in the trial court and it may be waived.”
Establishes that the statutory requirement for payment of costs before issuance of a writ of error is not absolute and can be waived by the party it was meant to protect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs in error (original plaintiffs) in a Florida School Book Depository case obtained a writ of error on July 24, 1922. The defendants in error …
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 Waiver Of Statutory Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
This is a motion to dismiss the writ of error. The ground of the motion is that writ of error was illegally issued because the plaintiffs in error, who were the original plaintiffs, had not prior to the issuance of the writ of error, paid all costs which had accrued in and about the said suit up to that time.
Upon authority of Callison v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 82 Fla. 516, 90 South. Rep. 619, construing section 2908 of the Revised General Statutes, a writ of error may.be dismissed upon the ground stated in this motion.
The writ of error was issued and duly recorded in the minute book of the Circuit Court on the 24th day of July, 1922. It was returnable to this court September 20, 1922. The motion to dismiss was filed in this court on November 1, 1922. From a statement made by the' clerk of the Circuit Court from the common law progress docket attached to the motion to dismiss it appears that the accrued costs in the case were paid on September 6, 1922, after the writ of error was issued but fifty-five days before the motion to dismiss was filed in this court.
In Haile v. Mason Hotel and Investment Company, 71 Fla. 469, 71 South. Rep. 540, upon a motion to dismiss this court held: “The latter provision (of sec. 2908 Rev. Gen'. Stat.) is for the benefit of the defendant in the trial court and it may be waived. In this case it was stated at the bar that the costs assessed when the writ of error was issued were paid. Subsequently other costs due in the cause were taxed. The defendant having submitted the cause before making the motion to dismiss has waived his right by not acting promptly. He had notice of the issuance of the writ of error by its record under the statute.” In that case the motion to dismiss was denied.
The defendants in errbr, the original defendants, in this case must be held to have-had notice of the writ of error since the date of its recordation, July 24, 1922. So far as this record discloses no protest nor objection was made by them to the issuance of the writ of error. Prom the date of its issuance and recordation until the date of the filing in this court of the motion to dismiss a period of three months and more elapsed, and in the meantime and something like sixty days before the filing of the motion plaintiffs in error had, if the statement brought here by the movants is true, paid all the costs which had accrued “in and about the said suit up to the time when said writ of error was prayed,” and had prior to the filing of the motion, filed in this court a transcript of the record of the proceedings and their brief on the merits. In this situation defendants in error will beheld, at the time of filing their motion to dismiss, to have waived any benefits to which they may have been entitled under this statute.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Browne, C. <J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Busch v. Goodno, 99 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1930)…plaintiff’s right to demand a writ of error, and when this requirement of the statute is not complied with the writ will be dismissed on motion made for that purpose. Calli [*521] son v. A. C. L. Ry Co., 82 Fla. 516, 90 So. R. 619; Smith v. Dillard, 84 Fla. 516, 94 So. R. 664. The plaintiffs ask the Court to permit them to offset a claim which is in the form of a judgment, it is true, in favor of the corporation against their obligation to pay the court costs which have accrued. This cannot be considered…
-
Funke v. Fed. Tr. Co., 99 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…That conduct on the part of the appellee in the Circuit Court amounted to a waiver of his right to insist on the dismissal of the appeal for nonpayment of the costs. Haile v. Mason Hotel & Investment Co., 71 Fla. 469, 71 So. 540; Smith v. Dillard, 84 Fla. 516, 94 So. 664; Berg v. New York Life Insurance Company, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 630. See also, MacNeill v. Marks, supra. It follows that the petitioner has not shown that the Circuit Court failed to follow essential requirements of law in making the orde…
-
Simmons v. Gainesville Nehi Bottling Co., 119 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…iver by defendant the original plaintiff was required to pay all costs “which may have accrued in and about the said suit” as an indispensable prerequisite to appeal. Callison v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 82 Fla. 516, 90 So. 619; Smith v. Dillard, 84 Fla. 516, 94 So. 664; Busch v. Goodno, 99 Fla. 517, 128 So. 825. We recognize that under the statute payment of costs was not a jurisdictional prerequisite (Walker-Skagseth Food Stores v. National Surety Corporation, 148 Fla. 161, 3 So. 2d 756) nor do we thi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haile v. Mason Hotel & Inv. Co., 71 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1916)
- Callison v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 82 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1921)