E. E. ROPES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SNYDER HARRIS BASSETT COMPANY, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1895-01-01
35 Fla. 537 Florida Supreme Court (1895) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court rejected a motion to dismiss an appeal brought by defendant Ropes from a judgment rendered against him in an assumpsit action. The court held that an appeal properly entered during the term of judgment, even without a bill of exceptions or writ of error, is reviewable on errors apparent in the record.


Holding

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. An appeal properly entered during the term of court at which judgment was rendered, within the time provided by statute, is not subject to dismissal merely because no bill of exceptions or writ of error was filed. Errors apparent on the record may be reviewed without a bill of exceptions.


Key Quotes

“The fact that there is no bill of exceptions in a case is no ground for dismissing an appeal. A case can be reviewed on appeal on errors apparent upon the record without a bill of exceptions.”

Establishes that bill of exceptions is not jurisdictionally required for appellate review when errors appear on the record.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Snyder Harris Bassett Company sued Ropes in assumpsit in November 1891. Ropes filed pleas, but the trial court granted plaintiff's motion to strik…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Mabry, C. J.:

Mabry, C. J.:

The appellee.company, suing as a corporation, instituted an action of assumpsit against appellant in November, 1891. Pleas were filed b.y the defendant below .and a motion was made to strike them out because they were not sworn to, were frivolous and impertinent, and for judgment for want of pleas. This motion was granted on the 4th of February, 1892, and the clerk directed to assess the damages. The pleas copied into the record appear to have been sworn to on the 4th of February, 1892, but whether before or after the motion to strike out was granted, does not appear. Judgment was entered by the clerk in favor of the plaintiff for $154.13 and costs against the defendant,, who entered an appeal from the judgment.

The record entry of appeal made on the 1st of March, 1892, recites that ‘ ‘ at the term of the court aforesaid comes the defendant in person and in open court applies for and. enters his appeal from the judgment herein rendered to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida to be held at the city of Tallahassee on the 14th day of June, A. X). 1892.” The appeal bond was filed and approved, the day the appeal was entered. The transcript of the record and assignment of errors were filed in this court May 19th, 1892.

A motion has been made to dismiss the appeal: first, because no bill of exceptions has been filed; second, because no writ of error has been issued; and third,, because no appeal has been taken as required by law.

The fact that there is no bill of exceptions in a case is no ground for dismissing an appeal. A case can be reviewed on appeal on errors apparent upon the record without a bill of exceptions. The errors assigned in this case are upon the record. Sams vs. King, 18 Fla. 552; Gates vs. Hayner, 28 Fla.

325. The appeal was. entered in this case in March, 1892, before the Revised Statutes went into effect, and an appeal was then a. proper way to bring the case here for review if entered within the time provided by statute. Since the Revised. Statutes, actions at law are brought here for review by writ of error, except in cases where certiorari or prohibition shall lie or where otherwise expressly provided. Sec. 1262, R.

S. There is some uncertainty as. to the time of the entry of judgment in this case, but taking the record entry as we find it, it appears that, the appeal was entered and bond filed during the term of court at which the judgment was entered. Tbe statute in force at the time permitted appeals during the session of the court at which the judgment was rendered or within thirty days thereafter. McClellan’s Digest, page 840, sec. 2.

On the record the appeal appears to have been entered and perfected within the time allowed by the' statute, and this being the case, the motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground assigned-should be denied. Let an order be macle denying the motion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Cornelius, 100 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1930)
    …adequate remedy at law, because an appeal based on errors in rulings on admission of evidence cannot be considered by this Court unless presented by bill of exceptions properly authenticated and signed by the trial court. Ropes v. Snider Harris Co. 35 Fla. 537, 17 So. R. 651. ‘‘The existing legal remedy relied upon as a bar to interference by mandamus must not only be an adequate remedy in the general sense of the term, but it must be specific and appropriate to the particular circumstances of the case.”…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw