WILLIAM S. BARDIN, APPELLANT,
v.
E. M. L'ENGLE, 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.
This case involves an appeal from an ejectment action where the appellant claimed the lower court erred by not granting a default judgment. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the appellant failed to properly present the alleged errors due to an improperly signed bill of exceptions.
The court held that the alleged error regarding the default judgment could not be considered because the bill of exceptions was not properly authenticated. Therefore, no error appeared in the record before the court.
“The record in this case contains a declaration in ejectment, framed under the statute, a plea of the general issue, and a joinder in issue by the plaintiff is endorsed on the plea.”
Describes the basic procedural filings in the lower court.
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, plaintiff in the lower court, sued for ejectment. The appellee, defendant, filed a plea of the general issue. The appellant claims the …
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 Bill Of Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in an action *572■of ejectment in the Circuit Court for Duval county, wherein the appellant was plaintiff and the appellee defendant.
The first error assigned in this ease is, “ that the court refused a judgment by default for want of a replication, issue not having been joined before the swearing and empaneling of the jury.” The record in this case contains a declaration in ejectment, framed under the statute, a plea of the general issue, and a joinder in issue by the plaintiff is endorsed on the plea. This endorsement is without date, and the presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary is that it was made in time, and in conformity with the rules.
It is true, that the Judge certifies in what purports to be a bill of exceptions, that the plaintiff had not accepted the issue tendered by the plea before the jury were called, and if this statement was properly before us, the question stated in the first assignment of error would be raised ; but it appears that the bill of exceptions in this case was signed after the term, and there is no evidence that such time was allowed to make it up and sign it in accordance with the provisions of rule 8, governing the practice in the Circuit Courts in this respect. 6 Fla., 521. The appellee makes this objection to the bill of exceptions, and the rule must be enforced.
The practice which prevails in the Supreme Court of the United States is not to regard such a paper as a bill of ex-■eeptions. 4 Pet., 107; 4 How., 4. We cannot therefore regard this statement in the consideration of this subject.
All the other errors assigned involve a consideration of the evidence adduced upon the trial, and in the absence of a bill of exceptions cannot be considered.
We have nothing in the record which occurred upon the trial. Ho error appears in such portion of the record as is before us, and we cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)…e is not properly nor authoritatively nor legally certified to this court. See Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 South. Rep. 906; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 825; Bardin v. L’Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Potsdamer v. State of Florida, 17 Fla. 895; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799; Rehfield v. Moore, 76 Fla. 378, 80 South. Rep. 52; Montgomery v. State, 54 Fla. 73, 45 South. Rep. 813; Circuit…
-
Sanford v. Cloud, 17 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1880)
-
Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1908)…er of times by this court and it has been uniformly [*352] held that “a bill of exceptions should be made up' and signed during the term of the court at which the trial is had, unless by special order further time is allowed.” See Bardin v. L’Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Robinson v. Hartridge, 13 Fla. 501; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Pottsdamer v. State, 17 Fla. 895; Smith v. State, 20 Fla. 839; Bowden v. Wilson, 21 Fla. 165; Greely v. Percival, 21 Fla. 428; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Willingham v. State, 21…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Clarke, 4 How. 4 (U.S. 1846)