Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 Fla. 265

Porter v. Ewing

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided January 15, 1906

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1906-01-15

This case was decided by tbe Court En Banc. Writ of Error to tbe Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. The facts ,in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. Park hill, J., dissents.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1910

4 state decisions

Relies on Idaho Oregon Land Imp Co v. Bradbury · Ray v. Trice · Martin v. Hudson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1906-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Parki-iill, J.,

¶1dissenting.

¶2This case was dismissed because of the defective certificate of the clerk to the .transcript of record, in accordance with precedents established by this court long before I came here.

¶3Although I have been inclined heretofore to recognize the force of these precedents, this practice of dismissing writs of error in this way has never been satisfactory to me, and I have hoped that the court could see its way clear to adopt a different practice. This was my attitude when the application for reinstatement was denied in case of Akin et al. v. Margan et al. at June Term, A. D. 1905, and further consideration of this question and the effect of this practice has convinced me of the wisdom of the procedure which ought to govern me now, and which I think should be adopted by this court.

¶4My opinion is that instead of dismissing the writ of error absolutely because of a defective certification when the case was taken up by the court for final disposition, the better practice would have been to have made an order that the submission of the case be set aside, and that the plaintiff in error be permitted to append to the transcript a certificate in the form prescribed by the rules serving a copy upon defendant in error within say ten days, and that upon failure to comply with the order the writ of error be dismissed. See Martin v. Hudson, 79 Cal. 612, 21 Pac. Rep. 1135.

¶5As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Idaho & Oregon Land Imp. Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509, text 513, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177, on a motion to dismiss an appeal, “the question presented is not one of no authentication, but of irregular, or imperfect authentication, not of jurisdiction, but of practice. It is, there*269fore, within the discretion of this court to allow the defect to be supplied.” See also Ray v. Trice, 48 Fla. 297, 37 South. 582.

¶6I am in favor of allowing the plaintiff in error to append to the transcript a certificate in the form prescribed by the rules, as he has promptly asked leave to do. The motion of the plaintiff in error should be granted.

/51/fla/265 · .json · Public domain