LIVE OAK, PERRY AND GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
R. H. HOLMES, 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.
This case addresses whether a bill of exceptions can be signed in vacation after a motion for a new trial is denied, even without an explicit order during the term. The court held that it can, provided a special order allowing further time was made when ruling on the new trial motion.
Yes, a bill of exceptions can be settled and signed in vacation after the trial term, provided a special order allowing further time was made by the court at the time of ruling on the motion for a new trial.
“The ground of the motion is that the bill of exceptions was signed in vacation by the trial judge, without an order having been made during the term of the court at which the trial was had allowing further time for settling and signing it.”
This quote states the core argument of the motion to strike the bill of exceptions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant's motion to strike the bill of exceptions was based on the claim it was signed in vacation without a proper order during the trial term.…
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.
West, J.
This is a motion to strike from the transcript of the record the bill of exceptions. The ground of the motion is that the bill of exceptions was signed in vacation by the trial judge, without an order having been made during the term of the court at which the trial was had allowing further time for settling and signing it.
Rule 97, Rules of Circuit Courts — Law Actions. During the term at which the trial was had and on the same day that the verdict was returned, for satisfactory cause shown, the court, in accordance with the provisions of section 2811, Revised General Statutes, extended the time of defendant for fifteen days for making and presentation of its motion for a new trial. Within the fifteen days the motion for new trial was presented and denied and the defendant was allowed ninety days in which “to have settled and signed its bill of exceptions. ’ ’ The bill of exceptions recites that after the expiration of the term at which .the verdict was rendered, by virtue of a special order made in said cause at the time of ruling on the motion for new trial, the defendant did propose and present its bill of exceptions to the trial judge and request him to sign the same, which was done within the time fixed in the order allowing further time.
Trial courts have power to hear and determine motions for new trials in vacation and adjudications thereof are to be entered in the minutes of the court and given like force and effect as if made during term -time. Sec. 2532, Rev. Gen. Stats. This court has held that where a motion for new trial is properly ruled upon in vacation and denied, the court may, at the time of the denial of the motion, though in vacation, by special order, allow further time for the settlement and signing of the bill of exceptions. Charlotte Harbor, &c., Ry. Co. v. Buchan, 71 Fla. 575, 71 South. Rep. 842; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Mallard, 53 Fla. 515, 43 South. Rep. 755; McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499, 15 South. Rep. 231. Upon authority of these eases the motion is deniedi
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Browne, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hazen v. Frank A. Smith as Judge of the Cir. Court of the Seventeenth Jud. Cir. of the State of Fla., 101 Fla. 767 (Fla. 1931)…the four days have expired our decisions contemplate that the Judge may dispose of the motion at a later date, but when he does so he then holds a term of court with reference to that particular ease, as was held in L. O. P. & G. Ry. Co. v. Holmes, 85 Fla. 463, 96 So. 400, and cases cited. So if the mere filing of a motion for a new trial, operates at all as a supersedeas, without a special order of court to that effect, it does not do so beyond the four day period after verdict, or such additional perio…
-
Worrell v. Ford, 90 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1925)…at law is not concluded until the motion for new UiaL where one is lawfully interposed, and retained for consideration, is disposed of. Greeley v. Percival, 21 Fla. 428; Rehfield v. Moore, 76 Fla. 378, 80 South. Rep. 52; Live Oak Ry. Co. v. Holmes, 85 Fla. 463; McClellan v. Wood, 78 Fla. 407, 83 So. 295; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Mallard, 53 Fla. 515, 43 So. 755. The motion is accordingly denied. West, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499 (Fla. 1894)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Mallard, 53 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1907)
- Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v. Buchan, 71 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1916)