DAVID F. MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN L. PARROTT, TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF J. R. PARROTT, DECEASED, AND E. G. SWARZ, APPELLEES
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 Mitchell's appeal for failure to file the transcript of record by the return day as required by statute. The court found no extension of time had been granted and that the appellant had effectively abandoned the appeal by scheduling oral argument before the circuit court instead.
The appeal was dismissed. Under Section 2915 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, when an appellant fails to file the transcript of record by the return day and no order extending the time has been made by the appellate court, the court must dismiss the appeal upon the adverse party producing a certificate from the clerk showing the writ was obtained.
“It shall be the duty of the plaintiff in error to demand from the clerk of the court below, or from the judge if it have no cleric, a true copy of all proceedings in such cause in the court below, and to file said copy in the appellate court on or before the return day of the writ of error.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for filing the transcript of record by the return day
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMitchell filed a bill of complaint on June 6, 1925. Parrott filed an answer and demurrer on August 1, 1925. Mitchell moved to strike the answer on Sep…
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 Abandonment Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
— On June 6, 1925, the appellant filed a Bill of Complaint in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida. On August 1, 1925, one of the respondents, Helen L. Parrott, filed an answer to the Bill of Complaint and also filed demurrer. The answer was verified under oath. To' the demurrer was attached the required certificate and affidavit.
On September 7th, appellant filed a motion to strike the answer and on the first day of October, 1925, the court made an order denying the motion to strike the answer filed by Helen L. Parrott as Trustee of the estate of J. R. Parrott, deceased. On the same day, to-wit on October 1, 1925, the appellant filed his notice of appeal, making the appeal returnable Thursday, December 10, 1925.
On January 6, 1926, Helen L. Parrott, as trustee of J. R. Parrott, deceased, filed motion in the Supreme Court to dismiss the said appeal upon the following grounds contained in said motion to-wit:
"1. Because the Appellant has not filed Transcript of Record on the Return day set by him.
2. Because there is nothing in the record to show that the time for filing the Transcript of Record was ever extended by the Supreme Court.
3. Because the Appellant has abandoned his Appeal as shown by setting the case for final hearing on December 2, 1925, and serving Notice on Appellee’s solicitor to argue the matter before the Judge of the Circuit Court on the 4th day of January, A. D. 1926, as shown by copy of his notice hereto annexed and made part of this motion.
4. Because the Appeal was so outrageously and palpably frivolous as to constitute' a reflection on the dignity of the Supreme Court.”
Section 2915, Revised General Statutes of Florida, provides as follows: "It shall be the duty of the plaintiff in error to demand from the clerk of the court below, or from the judge if it have no cleric, a true copy of all proceedings in such cause in the court below, and to file said copy in the appellate court on or before the return day of the writ of error. If the plaintiff in error fail to file the proceedings as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of said court, unless good cause be shown, to dismiss said writ of error on the adverse party producing' a certificate from the clerk of the court below, or from the judge if it have no clerk, that a writ of error has been obtained. ’ ’
It appears from the record in this case that a copy of the proceedings in the cause in the court below was not filed in the appellate court on or before the return day of the writ, and that no order had been made by this court extending the time for the filing of such transcript. The adverse party has produced in this court a certificate from the clerk of the court below showing that entry of appeal was made in that court by the appellant and that the same was made returnable on Thursday, December 10, 1925.
It is therefore the judgment of the Court that said appeal be, and the same is hereby dismissed.
Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Strum, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. Honorable Bayard B. Shields, 128 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1937)…163 (Certiorari denied 248 U. S. 584, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182, 63 L. Ed. 433); Mitchell v. Mason, 79 Fla. 140, 83 Sou. Rep. 869; Mitchell v. Mason, 90 Fla. 192, 105 Sou. Rep. 404; Mitchell v. Mason, 90 Fla. 201, 106 Sou. Rep. 430; Mitchell v. Parrott, 91 Fla. 36, 107 Sou. Rep. 415. The litigation to which this petition relates has been in progress for perhaps thirty years. At the time it first was instituted “Villa Alexandria” to which it relates, was but a country estate on the banks of the St. Johns Riv…