¶1This cause coming on to be heard upon a petition filed by appellee for an allowance of suit money and at*155torney fees to enable her to defend in this court and maintain the decree rendered in her favor in the Circuit Court, and it appearing to the court that the appeal entered in this cause was during the June term, 1897, of this court, to-wit,: on the 12th day of October, 1897, to a day in said term, to-wit: the 3rd day of Janury, 1898, in violation of the statute, whereby this court has acquired no jurisdiction of said cause (Samuel Eddy’s Case, 6 Cush. 28; Green v. Castello, 35 Mo. App. 127; Whitehead v. Cole & Rodgers, 49 Mo. App. 428; Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dallas, 321; Elliott’s App. Proc. §128; 2 Ency. Pl. & Pr., p. 16; Palmer v. Dayton, 4 Cush. 270; Cissell v. Cissell’s Executor, 77 Mo. 371; Commonwealth v. Dunham, 22 Pick. 11; Porter v. Grisham, 3 How. (Miss.) 75; Clark v. Maine Shore Line Railroad Co. 81 Maine, 477, 17 Atl. Rep. 497; Hall v. Penny, 13 Fla. 593; Jackson v. Haisly, 27 Fla. 205, 9 South. Rep. 648; Santom v. Ballard, 133 Mass. 464), it is, therefore, ordered that said petition be, and the same is, hereby denied, and said appeal be dismissed.
40 Fla. 154
Fleming v. Fleming
Decided January 15, 1898
Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1898-01-15
<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>
Relies on Santom v. Ballard · Green v. Castello · Whitehead v. Cole & Rodgers
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1898-01-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1925
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →