GEORGE STONE, ET AL., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., JAMES H. LIPSCOMB, RELATOR, 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 because it was not properly recorded, thus failing to establish jurisdiction over the defendants in error. The case involved a mandamus proceeding concerning a town election for marshal.
No, the Florida Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction because the writ of error was not recorded as required by law.
“But the writ of error does not appear to have been recorded as required by law so as to give this court jurisdiction of the defendants in error, and there being no appearance here for the defendants in error, the writ of error should be and is hereby dismissed.”
This quote explains the primary reason for the court's decision to dismiss the writ of error.
Mandamus proceedings were initiated to compel town authorities to place a relator's name on the ballot for marshal. An amendment in June 1913 made the…
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 Constitutional Validity Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
[*249] Whitfield, J.
Mandamus proceedings were brought November 11th, 1913, to require the town authorities to place the relator’s name on the ballots as a candidate for marshal at a town election held November 25th, 1913, based upon a petition endorsing the relator as a candidate for marshal. The statute authorizing the municipality to elect a marshal was amended in June, 1913, so as to make the marshal appointive-and the advertisement for the election made-no provision for electing a marshal. A peremptory writ of mandamus was issued November 21st, 1913, on the theory that the amending act of 1913 is unconstitutional ; but a stay of proceedings was ordered by the trial judge. On May 14th, 1914, a writ of error was taken by the respondents. But the writ of error does not appear to have been recorded as required by law so as to give this court jurisdiction of the defendants in error, and there being no appearance here for the defendants in error, the writ of error should be and is hereby dismissed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McJunkins v. Stevens, 88 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1925)…all, 37 Fla. 549, 20 South. Rep. 775), or by recording (Garrison v. Parsons, 41 Fla. 143, 25 South. Rep. 336) as required by the statute, the appeal or Writ of Error will be dismissed (Whitted v Abbe, 54 Fla. 669, 45 South. Rep. 478; Stone v. State, 68 Fla. 248, 67 South. Rep. 163) unless the appellee appears generally in the cause in the Appellate Court or duly waives notice. See Southern States Land & Timber Co. v. Lowe, 61 Fla. 775, 55 South. Rep. 73. An appeal or Writ of Error that does not include all…
-
Thomas v. Martin, 99 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1930)…ed as required by Sec [*610] tion 4624, Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida 1927, and there has been no appearance here by or for the defendant in error. This Court is therefore without jurisdiction of the defendant in error. Stone v. State ex rel. Lipscomb, 68 Fla. 248, 67 So. R. 163; McJunkins v. Stevens, 88 Fla. 559, 102 So. R. 756. The certificate of the clerk purporting to authenticate the transcript of the record is effective. The writ of error must be and is hereby dismissed. Per Curiam. The record in thi…