M. S. MCGREGOR
v.
OLIN C. HAMMOCK

Fla. | 1934-03-09
114 Fla. 259 Florida Supreme Court (1934) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 154 So. 191
Cited by 18 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court vacated its own order reinstating a dismissed appeal because it had lost jurisdiction over the case. After dismissing the appeal for failure to file a transcript, the Court issued a mandate that became effective when the appellant failed to comply within the required time period, terminating the Court's jurisdiction before any timely motion for rehearing could be filed.


Holding

The Court held it lacked jurisdiction to enter the order of reinstatement on January 22, 1934, because it had already lost jurisdiction when the mandate issued. The dismissal order of October 31, 1933, became effective by operation of law when the appellant failed to comply within 60 days and failed to file a timely motion for rehearing before the mandate issued.


Key Quotes

“It will be seen from the above statement of the progress of the cause here that this Court lost jurisdiction of the cause when the same was dismissed by the order of this Court on October 31, 1933, and that order became effective by the non-performance of the requirements thereof sixty days after the date thereof and the mandate of this Court issued in due course”

Establishes the principle that jurisdiction is lost when a dismissal order becomes effective through non-compliance and a mandate issues.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant McGregor appealed to the Florida Supreme Court on February 5, 1932. On October 31, 1933, the Court granted appellee Hammock's motion to dism…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Buford, J.

Buford, J.

— In this case notice of appeal was entered in the court below on the 5th day of February, 1932, and recorded on the same day. The appeal was returnable on the 3rd day of May, 1932. On October 9, 1933, appellee filed motion to dismiss because of failure of the appellant to file transcript in this Court in compliance with the. rules. The motion was considered by the Court and on the 31st day of October, 1933, an order was entered wherein and whereby the motion to dismiss was granted and the cause dismissed unless the appellant should file transcript of record within sixty days from that date. The transcript was not filed within sixty days from that date and neither was any motion filed for rehearing on that order within fifteen days from the issuance thereof.

The order for mandate of this Court to issue was entered on January 4th, 1934, pursuant to its order of October 31st, 1933, wherein and whereby the motion was dismissed. The mandate was issued from this Court by being transmitted to the clerk of the court below on the 5th day of January, 1934, and in due course was filed in that court.

All of this happened during the June Term (1933) of this Court. That term closed by expiration of time on January 8, 1934, and the January Term, 1934, began on *261the 9th day of January, 1934. On January 11, 1934, appellant filed the transcript here. On January 16th, 1934, appellant filed motion- to reinstate the cause on the docket and an order was entered on January 22, 1934, granting the motion to reinstate the cause.

Appellee on the 27th day of January, 1934, filed motion for rehearing on the order reinstating the cause and' the case is before us now on the rehearing granted February 7th, 1934.

It will be seen from the above statement of the progress of the cause here that this Court lost jurisdiction of the cause when the same was dismissed by the order of this Court on October 31, 1933, and that order became effective by the non-performance of the requirements thereof sixty days after the date thereof and the mandate of this Court issued in due course and before any petition for rehearing on that order of October 31, 1933, had been filed. The petition for re-hearing was not made until long after the -time had expired in which it could be -made under the rules of Court to effect a change in the order of October 31, 1933. After the mandate had gone down to the court below the Term of the Court at and in which it issued expired and thereupon this Court lost jurisdiction of the cause, unless the mandate was issued because of inadvertence, mistake or error. See Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc., et al., 105 Fla. 683, 138 Sou. 630. See also 139 Sou. 188. See also State, ex rel. Davis v. City of Clearwater, reported 146 Sou. 836.

The order of October 31, 1933, was not entered by reason of error, inadvertence or mistake, but was an entirely proper, reasonable and right order to have been made under the circumstances of the case at that time. No motion was made for rehearing or reconsideration of that order until *262after the expiration of the term of the Court at which it was made, until after the mandate had gone down, nor until after the expiration of more than sixty days from the date of the order and, therefore, it is clearly apparent that this Court was without jurisdiction to make and enter the order reinstating the cause which was made and entered on the 22nd day of January, 1934, and for that reason the motion to vacate and set aside that order should be and the same is hereby granted.

Order of January 22, 1934, reinstating above styled cause on the docket is now vacated.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Terrell, J., not participating.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Olds v. Alvord, 139 Fla. 745 (Fla. 1939)
    …tephens Protestant Episcopal Church, 105 Fla. 683, 136 So. 238, 138 So. 630, 139 So. 188; 84 A. L. R. 566; note 579-601; Fla. Motor Lines v. Hill, 106 Fla. 33, 143 So. 261; State v. City of Clearwater, 108 Fla. 635, 146 So. 836; McGregor v. Hannock, 114 Fla. 259, 154 So. 191; Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 115 Fla. 508, 155 So. 725; Allen v. Broward County Loan & Mortgage Co., 118 Fla. 446, 159 So. 524. [*755] Per Curiam. — We give a chronology of the steps in the appeal leading up to the motion now unde…
  • D. E. R. Co. v. Warriner, 156 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
    …Minute Book 91, Page 117 in the office of the Clerk of the Civil Court of Record in Dade County, it is hereby ordered that a corrected mandate be reissued herein. See Livingston v. State, 113 Fla. 391, 152 So. 205; McGregor v. Hammock, 114 Fla. 259, 154 So. 191; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1962, 139 So. 2d 406 ; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 389. It is so ordered.…
  • Dyer v. City of Miami Emps'. Ret. Bd., 512 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
    …ese circumstances, had no jurisdiction to grant the petitioner’s aforesaid application for attorney’s fees and costs. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Judges of Dist. Court of Appeal, Fifth Dist., 405 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla.1981); McGregor v. Hammock, 114 Fla. 259, 154 So. 191 (1934); see Martin v. Martin, 139 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla.1962); Wheeler Fertilizer Co. v. Rogers, 49 So. 2d 83, 86 (Fla.1950); Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal Church, 105 Fla. 683, 138 So. 630 (1932); see also State ex rel. M…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw