PAUL CRIPPEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FELIX LIVINGSTON, 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 dismissed a writ of error for failing to comply with the statutory two-year time limit for bringing error proceedings. The Court held that a writ of error is not brought within the meaning of the statute until it is filed in the lower court, not when it is issued from the appellate court.
The writ of error must be dismissed because it was not filed in the lower court within two years of the judgment. A writ of error is not legally 'brought' until it is filed in the court that rendered the judgment; the date the writ is issued from the appellate court is immaterial to determining whether the statutory deadline is met.
“no judgment in any cause shall be reversed or avoided for any error or defect therein, unless error be commenced or brought and prosecuted with effect within two years after such judgment signed or entered of record”
Establishes the Florida statutory requirement at issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judgment was rendered and recorded in the Nassau County circuit court on December 21, 1866. The writ of error was issued from the Florida Supreme Co…
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.
delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is brought here by writ of error upon a judgment rendered in the circuit court in Nassau county, and a motion is now made to dismiss the writ upon the ground that it has not been prosecuted within the time required by the statute. It appears from the certificate of the clerk accompanying the record that the judgment in this case was rendered and recorded on the 21st, of December, A. D. 1866, and that the 22d day of December, A. D. 1866', was the last day of the term. The writ of error, by which the case is brought here, ivas issued from this court on the 19th December, A. D. 1868, and was filed in the court below on the 2d January, A. D. 1869.
*639Tlio act of 1861 (ch. 1096, §49, Larvs of Florida) provides that “ no j udgment in any cause shall ho reversed or avoided for any error or defect therein, unless error be commenced or brought and prosecuted with effect within íavo years after such judgment signed or entered of record.”
The corresponding act controlling this subject in the courts of the United States (act of 1789, ch. 20, §22) provides that Avrits of error shall not be brought but within five years after rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, and the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a Avrit of error is not brought in the legal meaning of the term until it is filed in the court which rendered the judgment, and that the day on which the writ may have been issued, or on which it b$ars test, are not material in deciding the question. 11 Howard, 208.
The record of the inferior court is not transferred, its proceedings are not affected, and, indeed, but little folloAArs the simple issuing of the writ. Our statute requires that the writ shall be commenced and prosecuted Avith effect, or brought and prosecuted Avith effect, the Avords being: “Unless error be commenced or brought and prosecuted with effect” within two years after judgment signed or entered. To come within- the legal meaning of this statute, the writ must be filed in the in-* ferior court before two years after judgment entered. In this case two years and twelve days have transpired. We deem it unnecessary to determine what may be the effect of a failure to serve the scire facias to hear errors .“ at least tAveiAty-five days before the first day of the term to which the writ of error is returnable.”
Under the rules of this court and the statute we think the prope - method to take advantage of the limitation of the statute1 is by this motion or. a motion to quash. Our practice in such matters corresponds under the rules to the practice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and this is the practice in that court. 11 Howard, 208.
The writ must be dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McClellan v. Wood, 78 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1919)…evised Statutes of 1892. [*410] Delays in disposing of motions for new trials apparently did not often raise questions of limitation when the time for taking writ of error was two years, though a writ of error was dismissed in Crippen v. Livingston, 12 Fla. 638, where the judgment “was rendered and recorded” December 21, 1866, and the writ of error was issued from the Supreme Court December 19, 1868, but not filed in the Circuit Court till January 2, 1869. The filing of the writ of error in the trial court…
-
First Nat'l Bank of Orlando & Jno. N. C. Stockton v. Ziba King, 36 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1895)…return day of the writ of error as to enable it to be made jetiornable to the same day with the writ of error, and to enable it to be served upon the defendant in error twenty-five days before its return 'day. This court, in Crippen vs. Livingston, 12 Fla. 638, following the Supreme Court of the United States, in Brooks vs. Norris, 11 How. 204, held that, the filing of the writ of error with the clerk of the court whose judgment is to be reviewed removes the record from the inferior to the ai>pellate cour…
-
Sammis v. Wightman, 25 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1889)
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