Arnold v. Boyce
| Decision Date | 13 May 1929 |
| Citation | 122 So. 117,97 Fla. 484 |
| Parties | ARNOLD et al. v. BOYCE, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, St. Johns County; George Wm. Jackson Judge.
On petition for rehearing. Petition denied.
For original opinion, see 121 So. 472.
Syllabus by the Court
That Supreme Court stood in recess did not warrant delaying return date of writ of error, since court is in session continuously. Fact that Supreme Court stood in recess on date at which writ of error was applied for did not warrant making writ returnable at date more than 90 days after its issuance since court had not adjourned and term of court is continuous from commencement thereof until beginning of succeeding term.
A. H. Odom, Hilburn & Merryday, and J. J. Canon all of Palatka, and H. A. Henderson, of St. Augustine, for plaintiffs in error.
Fred H. Davis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
In this case an order was made dismissing the writ of error because the writ of error was made returnable to a date more than 90 days after the date of the issuance of the writ.
A petition for rehearing was filed in which it is suggested that the writ of error was applied for on the 27th day of August, and that because the court was not in session the writ had to be made returnable to the first day of the next term of the court. Counsel are laboring under a misapprehension. There has not been a time for a number of years past that the Supreme Court was not in session within the purview of the statute involved. At the time the act under consideration here became effective, the sessions of the Supreme Court were short. There were two terms commencing respectively on the second Tuesday in January and June of each year. Not all the time of the court was required to dispose of the cases and other business then before it, and so when the court had finished all cases ready to be disposed of and had transacted such other business as was necessary to be disposed of during that term of the court, it adjourned subject to be convened in special term, or until the next regular term of the court. That condition no longer obtains. For a number of years there has been no adjournment of one term of the court until immediately preceding the beginning and convening of the next succeeding term of the court. The court does at times stand in recess for a few days, and during the hottest and most oppressing part of summer these periods of recess for necessary rest and rehabilitation of the justices obtain for a few weeks, but during all of such time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Provident Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Devito
... ... thirty days and not more than ninety days from the date of ... the' entry of appeal. DeBogory v. Hafleigh, 81 ... Fla. 631, 88 So. 470; Arnold v. Boyce (Fla.) 122 So ... 117; Long v. Sphaler, 89 Fla. 499, 105 So. 101; ... Buck v. All Parties, 86 Fla. 86, 97 So. 313 ... The ... ...
-
Picot v. Picot
...v. Stevens, 88 Fla. 559, 102 So. 756; Spencer v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 39 Fla. 677, 23 So. 442; Arnold v. Boyce, 97 Fla. 484, 121 So. 472, 122 So. 117; Ates v. Langley, 61 Fla. 504, 54 264; Gadsden v. State, 76 Fla. 543, 80 So. 308; East Coast Lumber Co. v. Walter Walton Co., 87 Fla. 326, 10......