MAY P. PERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY M. PERRY, APPELLEE
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 final decree, finding that the appellant failed to provide a complete record of the evidence considered by the lower court, thus precluding review of most assignments of error. Any error in the initial demurrer was deemed cured by subsequent amendments.
The court held that it could not consider the assignments of error related to the final decree and the sufficiency of evidence because the record was incomplete. Any error regarding the demurrer was considered cured by amendments to the bill of complaint.
“The first and third assignments cannot be considered by us as the certificate of the Chancellor shows that all the evidence before, and considered, by, him is not included in the transcript of the record.”
Establishes the reason for not reviewing the assignments of error related to the final decree and evidence sufficiency.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, May P. Perry, appealed a final decree entered by the lower court. The appeal raised three assignments of error concerning the final dec…
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 Transcript Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case there are three assignments of error as follows:
“Assignment 1. The Court erred in entering its Final Decree in this case.
“Assignment 2. The Court erred in not sustaining the Demurrer to the Bill of Complaint upon final hearing and in failing to show any disposition in said Final Decree.
Assignment 3. The Court erred in finding from the evidence any existence of the grounds set forth in Complainant’s Bill, or that the allegations of the Bill are supported by the evidence and that the equities are with Complainant.”
The first and third assignments cannot be considered by us as the certificate of the Chancellor shows that all the evidence before, and considered, by, him is not included in the transcript of the record.
*300If there was any error in not sustaining the demurrer to the Bill of Complaint it was cured by a later amendment to the Bill without a renewal of the demurrer, and also because the decree in effect overrules' the demurrer.
The decree must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur."
Davis, C. and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mingo v. Cain, 160 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1948)…ancellor’s certificate showed all evidence was not included in transcript, nor could assignment that court erred in finding that allegations of bill were supported by evidence and that equities were with complainant be considered.” — Perry v. Perry, 109 Fla. 299, 146 So. 914. The foregoing decisions were rendered before the adoption of the present rules, in 1942, which are more strict as to what the record should contain but more liberal as to supplying omissions. The present Supreme Court Rules relating…
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Manning, 114 Fla. 8 (Fla. 1934)…nd and which had been reported to the company by its agents and servants charged with the duty of making such reports. This case is to be differentiated from that of Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Maige, opinion filed March 23, 1933, and reported 109 Fla. 299, 147 So. 215. In that case the main question to be determined by the jury was whether or not the animal killed was killed at a place where the railroad was required to fence its track which was at a place near a flag station. In this case, not only…