THEODORE MOELLER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ELISE STOCKER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 dismissed a writ of error in a habeas corpus case concerning child custody due to a lack of jurisdiction over the defendant in error. The court found that proper legal procedures, such as issuing and serving a scire facias, were not followed, and the writ was not recorded correctly.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant in error because the required legal procedures, including the issuance and service of a scire facias, were not followed.
“It does not appear that a scire facias was issued and served as required by law, and the defendant in error has not appeared in person or by counsel in this court.”
Establishes the lack of proper service and appearance by the defendant in error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA writ of error was issued to review a judgment from a habeas corpus proceeding regarding the custody of an infant child. The defendant in error did n…
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 Scire Facias cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The writ of error in this cause was taken to a judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding awarding the custody of an infant child.
It does not appear that a scire facias was issued and served as required by law, and the defendant in error has not appeared in person or by counsel in this court. The writ of error was recorded in the chancery order book, but this does not give to this court jurisdiction of the defendant in error. Belch v. Manning, 55 Fla. 229, 46 South. Rep. 91; Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 South. Rep. 834.
Even if this be a civil proceeding within the meaning of section 17Ó4 of the General Statutes the writ of error should have been recorded in the minute book of the court and not in the Chancery Order Book. See section 1831, General Statutes of 1906.
It does not appear that this court has acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant in error, therefore the writ of error is dismissed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1908)
- Belch v. Frances Manning as prochein ami of Emma Manning, 55 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1908)