Bryan v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 1927 |
| Citation | 114 So. 773,94 Fla. 909 |
| Parties | BRYAN et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In the matter of docketing the appeal of J. Nathan Bryan and others as the Board of County Commissioners of Osceola County, in a proceeding to validate bonds, opposed by the State.
Appeal to be docketed on appellant's conformance with Supreme Court rule 11.
Syllabus by the Court
Statute concerning hearing, final decree, and appeal in proceedings to validate bonds held not to conflict with Supreme Court rule requiring filing of certified copy of transcript of record and copies thereof (Acts 1927, House Bill No. 559 Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 3298; Supreme Court rule 11). An act of the Legislature, Session of 1927, approved June 4 1927, entitled: 'An act to amend section 3298 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, relating to hearing final decree and appeal in proceedings to validate bonds,' is not in conflict with rule 11 of the Supreme Court requiring one certified copy of the transcript of the record and two copies thereof, clearly legibly typewritten or printed, to be filed in the Supreme Court.
Rules of court should be construed in harmony with statutes if possible. Rules of court should be construed so as to harmonize with the statute law if possible.
Court is bound by its rules as much as attorneys practicing before it. The court is bound by the rules which it prescribes as much so as the attorneys practicing before the court.
Milton Pledger, of Kissimmee, for petitioners.
A document purporting to be a certified copy of the proceedings in the circuit court for Osceola county relating to the validation of a certain bond issue was forwarded to the clerk of this court to be filed.
Rule 11 of the Supreme Court provides that in all civil cases, except habeas corpus cases, the plaintiff in error, or appellant, shall file in the Supreme Court, within the time required by law, a duly certified transcript of the record and two copies thereof, each of which shall be clearly and legibly typewritten or printed in black ink, and within the same time shall also serve the opposite party or his attorney with a typewritten or printed copy of the certified transcript, preserving in each of the said copies provided for the pages and order in the transcript. Said copies need not be certified.
An act of the Legislature, approved June 4, 1927, and known as House Bill No. 559, entitled 'An act to amend section 3298 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, relating to hearing, final decree and appeal in proceedings to validate bonds,' constitutes the appellants' authority for disregarding rule 11 of the Supreme Court quoted above.
Sections 3296 to 3302, revised General Statutes, prescribes the proceedings in the matter of the validation of municipal and county bonds. The law provided for the filing of a petition against the state of Flolrida in the circuit court of the county in which the bonds had been issued to determine the authority for incurring the bonded debt. It was provided that, on filing and presenting the petition, the court should issue an order against the state of Florida to show cause, at a time and place disgnated in the order, why the bonds should not be validated and confirmed. Prior to the hearing, a notice to taxpayers and citizens of the county was required to be published in a newspaper, requiring them, at the time and place specified in the order, to show cause, if any they had, why the bonds should not be validated. The law provided that by the publication of the notice all taxpayers and citizens of the county, municipality, taxing district, or other political district should be considered as parties defendant to the proceedings as if they had been named in the petition and served with process.
Section 3298 provided for the hearing, order, final decree, and appeal. Provision was made for an appeal to the Supreme Court. No attempt was made to change the procedure which in all respects, except the time limit in which an appeal could be taken, remained the same as in other chancery cases.
The act of 1927, supra, sought to amend section 3298 Revised General Statutes particularly in the matter of court procedure as applied to this court. After reducing the time for an appeal to fifteen days and limiting the return day of an appeal in such cases to twenty days, the act provides that on the return day of the appeal the appellant
The act further provides that:
'The certified copy of all of said proceedings, as aforesaid duly filed in the Supreme Court shall constitute the record upon which said appeal shall be heard in the Supreme Court.'
Provision is made that a brief by the appellant shall be filed in the Supreme Court within ten days after the return day of the appeal and a copy shall be delivered by him to appellee, or his attorney, who shall have five days thereafter to file his brief, a copy of which he shall deliver to appellant, or his attorney, who may reply thereto within five days.
The act then required this court to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n for Promulgation of New Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
... ... 128; Ruff ... v. Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 So. 782; ... State ex rel. Fisher v. Rowe, 110 Fla. 141, 148 So ... 558; Alaska Packers Association v. Pillsbury, 301 ... U.S. 174, 57 S.Ct. 682, 81 L.Ed. 988, and Bull v. Adams, ... 5 Cir., 17 F.2d 906, opinion by Judge Bryan. The general ... subject is reviewed in 14 American Jurisprudence, 355 to 372, ... citing numerous authorities, and on pages 357, 358, the ... following appears: ... 'The ... power of courts to make such rules as they may deem necessary ... is subject to the limitation that such ... ...
-
Fagan v. Robbins
...in the performance of its judicial duties, as distinguished from rules relating to substantive rights or remedial law. See Bryan v. State (Fla.) 114 So. 773; Spafford Brevard County (Fla.) 110 So. 451 (on rehearing). To me there is a clear distinction between the situation here involved and......
-
McAllister v. McAllister
... ... requirement does not destroy or abridge the constitutional ... rights of the parties. In the case of Bryan et al. v ... State of Florida, 94 Fla. 909, 114 So. 773, 774, we ... 'Should the ... Legislature seek to interfere with the inherent power ... ...
-
Rowe v. State, WW-161
...of statutory construction apply. Syndicate Properties, Inc. v. Hotel Floridian Company, 94 Fla. 899, 114 So. 441 (1927); Bryan v. State, 94 Fla. 909, 114 So. 773 (1927). Where the language to be construed is unambiguous, it must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Carson v. Miller, ......