PAUL C. FICHT
v.
D. C. MCMULLEN, ET AL.
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 considered a motion to dismiss a writ of error due to a clerical error in its dating. The court found the error to be a simple mistake in the year and treated the writ as amended, allowing the appeal to proceed.
No, the writ of error should not be dismissed. The court held that the incorrect dating of the writ was a clerical error and that the writ should be regarded as amended to reflect the correct year of issuance.
“The judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus was rendered by the circuit judge August 1, 1939.”
Establishes the timing of the underlying judgment.
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 awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus was rendered on August 1, 1939. A writ of error was issued and filed on August 3, 1939, but it was d…
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.
This is a motion to dismiss a writ of error dated August 3, 1935, returnable October 30, 1939. The *749judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus was rendered by the circuit judge August 1, 1939.
In this case the writ of error was issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and by him filed August 3, 1939. (Sec. 4618 [2908], 4624 [2914], C. G. L.) The return day was not an illegal or an impossible day in the past, but a future day within the limit fixed by law after the rendition of the judgment, which proves a clerical error only in dating the writ of error August 3, 1935, instead of August 3, 1939. The writ will be regarded as amended as to the date of its issue.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Ti-iomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krauth v. First Cont'l Dev-Con, Inc., 351 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…roperty. In the ordinary execution process, where more than one judgment has been obtained against a debtor, the one first put in the hands of the sheriff for execution should be the first satisfied. Blackstone Holding Co. v. Lawrence, 140 Fla. 703, 192 So. 198 (1939). Execution becomes a lien on personal property from the time the writ is delivered to the sheriff, superior to liens created by writs delivered to the sheriff at later times. Bank of Hawthorne v. Shepherd, 330 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); B…
-
Salina Mfg. Co. v. Diner's Club, Inc., 382 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…priority as to funds secured through levy upon property of a debt- or which is subject to execution is determined by the order in which the respective writs of execution are received by the sheriff. Blackstone Holding Co. v. Lawrence, 140 Fla. 703, 192 So. 198 (1939); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Daniell, 72 Fla. 489, 73 So. 592 (1916); Love v. Williams, 4 Fla. 126 (1851). This doctrine is, however, inapplicable to the present situation. As we have noted, since the boat was legally titled by the entiret…