WILLIAM PENNY, APPELLANT,
v.
N. H. HOLMES, 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 lower court's judgment in a replevin action because the appellant failed to provide a bill of exceptions, making it impossible to review the evidence or the court's decision.
No, an appellate court cannot presume a lower court's judgment is wrong without the evidence and a bill of exceptions in the record.
“The evidence submitted to the court is not before us. There is no bill of exceptions in the record.”
explains the lack of reviewable material in the appellate record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved an action of replevin initiated in Escambia county. The case, encompassing both law and facts, was submitted to the trial court, wh…
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 in an action of replevin instituted in Escambia county.
The case both as to, the law and the facts was submitted to the court, and after due consideration of the same, judgment was rendered for the defendant, (the appellee here,) in the court below.
The evidence submitted to the court is not before us. There is no bill of exceptions in the record. We have nothing but the judgment of the court before us, and we cannot presume that it is wrong.
We deem it unnecessary to discuss the effect of the constitutional requirement directing that the evidence shall be reduced to writing by the clerk under the control of the court and filed with the papers in the case, as this matter has been decided at this term after mature consideration, our conclusion being that this section does not dispense with the necessity of a bill of exceptions.
The judgment is affirmed.