WILLIAM CAULK, ADMINISTRATOR CUM TESTAMENTO ANNEXO OR DANIEL W. HART, ET AL.
v.
SAMUEL W. FOX AND WIFE
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 an appeal for lack of a properly filed transcript of the record. The appellant failed to comply with statutory requirements by not filing a complete and certified copy of all proceedings, rendering the court unable to exercise jurisdiction.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant failed to file a true copy of all proceedings in the cause as required by law. Without a properly certified complete transcript, the court could not take cognizance of the case.
“The necessary result is, that we have here no case, and it must be stricken from the docket.”
States the core holding that lack of proper record filing deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to appeal a case involving questions that were previously addressed by decree. The appellant filed certain documents including a …
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.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Quite a number of interesting questions have been presented for our consideration by the counsel engaged in this cause, but the appellant has failed to file in this court a transcript of the record, or, in the language of the statute, “ a true copy of all proceedings ” in the cause.
The necessary result is, that we have here no case, and it must be stricken from the docket. 5 Ark., 474 ; 6 Ark., 252; 13 Pet., 459; 3 Dall., 410 ; 18 How., 110 ; 7 Fla., 10; Thomp. Dig., 448.
What is on file in this court consists of a copy of a petition filed by appellee, praying that a decree rendered in this case at a previous date might be opened; a copy of an agreement of counsel to the effect that certain questions affecting the interest of the parties they represented, and which were not determined in the previous decree, might be determined, and the decree of the court upon the points thus sub*148mitted by agreement of tbo parties. Neither the original decree nor the bill and answer or proofs are to be found in the paper filed, and the counsel for appellant disclaims any connection with these prior proceedings. Had there been a certificate of the clerk in the usual form, to the effect that the paper sent here was a true and correct copy of all of the proceedings in the cause, then the defect could have been remedied at the proper time by a certiorari; but there is not here anything upon which a certiora/ri could be based. The clerk certifies that “ the foregoing papers are true and correct copies of originals flow on file in this cause.” What is here filed does not even purport to be a transcript of the record.
In order to justify a certiorari, there must be a suggestion of diminution in the record;' and, as a matter of course, there must be upon the files of the court what purports to be a transcript of the record or copy of all of the proceedings, before it can hear any suggestion of diminution. 1 Ala., 20.
There is no. case here of which we can take cognizance.
The case must be stricken from the docket, appellant to pay costs.
Mr. Justice Hart, being disqualified, did not hear this cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akin v. Morgan, 50 Fla. 173 (Fla. 1905)…uth. Rep. 534; First National Bank of Pensacola v. Oxford Lake Line, 45 Fla. 275, 34 South. Rep. 893; [*175] Burnham v. Driggers, 44 Fla. 168, 32 South. Rep. 796; The Orange County High School v. Sanford, 17 Fla. 120. See, also, Caulk, Admr. v. Fox, 13 Fla. 147; Zinn, Aldrich & Co. v. Dzialynski, 14 Fla. 43; Rabon v. State, 7 Fla. 9. A motion to vacate the order dismissing the writ of error, to reinstate the cause and to permit the plaintiffs in error to correct, or cause to be corrected, the certificate…
-
Zinn v. Dzialynski, 14 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1871)
Authorities Cited
- Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 How. 110 (U.S. 1855)
- Keene v. Warren Whittaker and others, 13 Pet. 459 (U.S. 1839)
- Rabon v. The State, 7 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1857)
- Ex parte Hallowell, 3 Dall. 410 (U.S. 1799)