MINNIE E. STEINHAUSER, WIDOW, ALSO KNOWN AS MARY CECELIA FRIDELL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 affirmed a condemnation judgment, holding that the appellant failed to properly preserve for appeal the issue of whether the jury viewed the premises, as required by statute.
No, the appellant failed to preserve the issue for appeal because the record presented to the appellate court did not include the necessary documentation to demonstrate the alleged lack of a jury view.
“The principal contention of the plaintiff in error appears to be that the record presented here does not show that the jury viewed the premises as is required by statute.”
Identifies the main argument raised by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Jacksonville filed a petition to condemn property for sanitary improvements. The respondent property owner answered and filed a plea. The …
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 Eminent Domain Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case petition was filed by the City of Jacksonville to condemn certain property for the purpose of deepening and straightening a certain stream known as McCoy’s Creek to improve the sanitary condition of the city. The Respondent appeared' and answered and also filed a plea. In due course the case came on for trial. The record discloses no challenge of the sufficiency of the petition or the right of the petitioner to pursue the legal remedy invoked in the Court below and, as the plaintiff in error did not require the presentation here of copies in the record of either her answer or her plea, we are not advised as to what, if any, her defense was.
The principal contention of the plaintiff in error appears to be that the record presented here does not show that the jury viewed the premises as is required by statute. The plaintiff in error failed to bring here that record which would *153show the lack of performance of this requirement, if such lack existed. The view of the premises in a condemnation proceeding is a matter which occure in pais and the record thereof is required only to be presented by the bill of exceptions.
A bill of exceptions when signed becomes a part of the record in the court below and a transcript thereof becomes the record in this Court showing what traiispired in pais in the court below. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Manatee County, 78 Fla. 470, 83 So. 268.
No reversible error being disclosed by the record presented to us, the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Manatee Cnty. for the Use of J. H. Walker, 78 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1919)