P. R. OSBORN AND M. R. MCKINSTRY
v.
STATE
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 lower court's decision to remand petitioners to custody for rendition to California. The court found that the petitioners were fugitives from justice based on uncontradicted testimony placing one petitioner in California when the alleged grand theft occurred, which was treated as applicable to both.
Yes, the petitioners are fugitives from justice. The uncontradicted testimony placing one petitioner in California at the time of the alleged crime, which was treated as applicable to both, satisfies the requirement for rendition.
“The only question presented is whether the parties are fugitives from justice as to the charge of grand theft made against them.”
This quote states the central legal issue before the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners were held under an executive warrant for rendition to California on a charge of grand theft. One of the petitioners testified that he was …
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 Rendition Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ of error was taken to a final order in habeas corpus proceedings remanding the petitioners to the custody of the sheriff, “with directions that they be turned over and delivered to the agent from the State of California named in the executive warrant of rendition issued by Honorable David Sholtz, Governor of Florida.”
The only question presented is whether the parties are fugitives from justice as to the charge of grand theft made against them.
In addition to the legal effect of the warrant of rendition issued by the Governor of Florida on which the Plaintiffs in Error are held, the uncontradicted testimony of one of *489the Plaintiffs in Error shows that he was in the State of California when the alleged crime was committed. The charge is grand theft. The witness testified that he took part in the transaction upon which the charge is predicated. This testimony was -treated as applicable to both of the Plaintiffs in Error. Testimony as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, not merely showing the presence or absence of the accused from the state when the alleged crime was committed, was properly excluded.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Fla. Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1938)…Carry Cleaners, v. Cleaning, Dyeing, and Pressing Board, 128 Fla. 408, 174 So. 829, Coleman, Sheriff, v. State, ex rel. Lichtenstein, 128 Fla. 408, 174 So. 829; Bon Ton Cleaners and Dyers, Inc., v. Cleaning, Dyeing, and Pressing Board, 128 Fla. 535, 176 So. 55. The Act under review is different from the 1935 Act considered in the foregoing cases in that it contains a legislative finding of evils that have become prevalent in the industries attempted to be regulated and the need for the regulation complai…1 / 3
-
McRAE v. Robbins, 151 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1942)…onality of price fixing measures has been considered and sustained by this Court. See Miami Home Milk Producers Asso. v. Milk Control Board, 124 Fla. 797, 169 So. 541; Bon Ton Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Bd., 128 Fla. 533, 176 So. 55; Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Bd., 128 Fla. 408, 174 So. 829; Bristol-Myers Co. v. Webb’s Cut Rate Drug Co., Inc., 137 Fla. 508, 188 So. 91; Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1, 1…
-
Scarborough v. Webb's CUT Rate Drug Co., Inc., 150 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1942)…b. Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., 299 U. S. 183, supra. Price fixing Acts were considered by this Court in State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 So. 394; Bon Ton Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Board, 128 Fla. 533, 176 So. 55; Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Board, 128 Fla. 408, 174 So. 829; Bristol-Myers Co. v. Webb’s Cut-Rate Drug Co., 137 Fla. 508, 188 So. 91. In the case of Miami Home Milk Producers Ass’n. v. Milk Control Board, 12…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence