THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., FRED H. DAVIS, ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND GEORGE BOOTH, C. S. WASHINGTON, W. E. CURRY AND THE PALMACEIA SPRINGS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 filed too late and was not authorized by statute. The appeal sought to review an order vacating a previous judgment and allowing further proceedings.
No, the writ of error was not timely because it was filed more than six months after the order vacating the judgment. Furthermore, the statute does not authorize a writ of error to an order vacating a judgment and allowing further proceedings.
“A writ of error was issued to the judgment in-the cause on September 25, 1930, which was more than six months from the date of the judgment, and therefore not authorized by the-statute.”
Establishes the untimeliness of the writ of error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judgment of ouster was entered in quo warranto proceedings. The respondent moved to vacate this judgment, and the motion was granted. The court vaca…
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 Quo Warranto cases and more on FLexlaw
A judgment of ouster was rendered February 22,-1930, in Quo Warranto proceedings. There was no motion for a new trial. On March 31, 1930, the respondent made a' motion to vacate the judgment of ouster. This motion was granted August 6, 1930. The judgment was vacated and set aside and time allowed for amending the amended answer and for further proceedings in the cause.
A writ of error was issued to the judgment in-the cause on September 25, 1930, which was more than six months from the date of the judgment, and therefore not authorized by the-statute. There was no motion for a new trial and the statute does not authorize a writ of error to be taken to an order vacating a judgment and allowing further proceedings in a law action. See Melbourne State Bank v. Gillette, decided at this term.
*645Dismissed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J.J., and Gray, Circuit Judge, concur.
Davis, J., disqualified.