AMANDA PARSONS AND HALSTED H. HOEG, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTHA B. BAXTER, 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 because the appellants failed to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate any errors. Without evidence or the court's charge, the appellate court presumed the lower court acted correctly.
No, the trial court did not err because the record provided no evidence or context to support the claim of error.
“There is no assignment of errors filed in this case, as required by the rules.”
Highlights a procedural deficiency in the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartha B. Baxter sued Amanda Parsons and Halsted H. Hoeg in assumpsit, and the Duval Circuit Court entered a judgment against the defendants for $1,77…
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 coutt.
Assumpsit commenced in Duval Circuit Court by Martha B. Baxter, appellee, against appellants, and judgment rendered against them Mov. 29th, 1869, for $1,772.53.
There is no assignment of errors filed in this case, as required by the rules.
The error mentioned in the brief is that “ the court refused to charge the jury touching the remission of interest during the absence of the plaintiff from the country and the absence of the instrument sued on, the plaintiff having no authorized agent here to receive payment, as asked for by counsel for defendants.”
The bill of exceptions contains none of the evidence -whatever, nor any indication of the state of the facts upon which the court was asked to charge, nor does it contain any part of the charge of the court. The judgment is conformable the declaration in the suit, and as there is nothing before us showing whether an error was committed or not, the presumption is there was none.
There being no error apparent in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weaver v. State, 58 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1909)…be true by the record. As the record does not show the entire charge given, we cannot say that the trial court erred in refusing to give the specific charge requested by the defendant. Ford v. Ford, 110 Ind. 89, 10 N. E. Rep. 618; Parson v. Baxter, 13 Fla. 580; Stewart v. Mills, 18 Fla. 57; Youngglove v. Knox, 11 Fla. 743, 33 South. Rep. 127; Finlayson v. State, [*137] 46 Fla. 81, 35 South. Rep. 203; Reynolds v. State, 34 Fla. 175, 16 South. Rep. 78. When the special instruction mentioned above was refus…
-
Russell v. Marks, 32 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1893)