Bunch v. John
| Decision Date | 09 January 1923 |
| Citation | 85 Fla. 22,95 So. 235 |
| Parties | BUNCH v. JOHN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; E. C. Love, Judge.
Action by P. L. John, for the use and benefit of the High Springs Bank, against James H. Bunch. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
On motion to strike the bill of exceptions.
Motion sustained, and judgment affirmed.
See also, Bunch v. High Springs Bank, 83 Fla. 22, 90 So 543.
Syllabus by the Court
Law providing extension of time for presenting motions beyond four days' period requires presentation to judge and three days' notice to opposing party. Section 2811, Rev Gen. St. 1920, providing for an extension of time for the making and presentation of motions for a new trial beyond the period of four days after the rendition of the verdict requires the presentation of the motion to the judge, and a copy thereof to be served on the opposite party or his attorney with three days' notice of the time and place that the motion will be presented and heard.
Bill of exceptions made up after term at which verdict rendered stricken, where motion for new trial not timely made. Where after verdict rendered the court, upon application of the persons against whom the verdict is rendered, extends the time for the making and presentation of a motion for a new trial under the provisions of section 2811, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, and makes an order to the effect that, in the event the motion be overruled and denied, the party against whom the verdict was rendered shall be allowed 90 days from the date of the overruling and denying of the motion in which to present and settle a bill of exceptions and a motion for a new trial was not made and presented in compliance with the terms of the statute, a bill of exceptions made up and settled after the expiration of the term of the court at which the verdict was rendered will upon motion be stricken from the record.
COUNSEL James H. Bunch, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Furman Y. Smith, of Alachua, for defendant in error.
A motion was made in this case to strike from the record the bill of exceptions contained therein, upon the ground that the circuit judge who sat in the cause pro hac vice under order of the Governor of the state of Florida was disqualified and without jurisdiction to settle and sign the same. Also upon the ground that the bill of exceptions shows upon its face that it was settled and signed after the term of the court at which the judgment was rendered had adjourned and that no proper order had been made in the cause extending the time beyond the term of the court in which to settle and sign a bill of exceptions.
This was an action of ejectment pending in the circuit court for Columbia county. The judge of the second judicial circuit, under order of the Governor of the state of Florida, sat as judge of the circuit court for Columbia county in the trial of said cause. There was a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff on the 26th day of April, 1922. The defendant gave notice of his motion for a new trial and moved the court to allow him 15 days from that date in which to file and submit his motion. The motion was granted and an order was made that, in the event the motion be overruled and denied by the court, the defendant should be allowed 90 days from the date of the overruling and denying of the same in which to present and settle and sign a bill of exceptions.
Six days after that order was entered the defendant prepared a motion in writing for a new trial entitling the case as follows: 'High Springs Bank, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v James H. Bunch, Defendant, Ejectment,' and sent the written motion to the clerk of the circuit court for Columbia county at Lake City. The defendant, on May 9th, obtained the written motion from the clerk of the circuit court at Lake City and sent it by mail on May 10th to the judge of the second judicial circuit of Florida at Quincy, and that day forwarded to the plaintiff's counsel, for the first time a copy of the motion and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. Chillingworth
... ... presented and heard, had been [114 Fla. 289] served on ... plaintiffs or their counsel, as required by law. Bunch v ... John, 85 Fla. 22, 95 So. 235 ... On ... March 14, 1933, pursuant to a continuance by the court of the ... hearing on plaintiff's ... ...
-
Hillsboro Plantation v. Plunkett
...place that the same will be presented and heard. * * *' The decisions of this Court referred to in the quoted question are Bunch v. Johns, 85 Fla. 22, 95 So. 235; Citizens' Bank of Williston v. Williams, 91 Fla. 589, 110 So. 252; Bishop v. Chillingworth, 120 Fla. 740, 163 So. 93, and Howlan......
-
Maule Ojus Rock Co. v. Lumpkin
...nor was any effort made to do so, so the motion was stricken. Warner v. Goding, 91 Fla. 260, 107 So. 406. In the case of Bunch v. John, 85 Fla. 22., 95 So. 235, 236, the verdict and judgment were entered at the same term of court, the motion for an extension of time for the presentation of ......
-
Citizens' Bank of Williston v. Williams
...or his attorney, with three days' notice of the time and place that the same shall be presented and heard. In the case of Bunch v. John, 85 Fla. 22, 95 So. 235, was held that where the requirements of the statute were not complied with the court is without jurisdiction to grant or deny the ......