City of Hollywood v. Bair
| Decision Date | 11 June 1936 |
| Citation | 168 So. 815,124 Fla. 520 |
| Parties | CITY OF HOLLYWOOD et al. v. BAIR. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; George W. Tedder, Judge.
Action by John H. Bair against the City of Hollywood and others. To review an adverse judgment, the defendants bring error. On motions to strike exhibits included in transcript of record certain pages of transcript of record to strike entire bill of exceptions, and to quash and dismiss writ of error.
Motion to strike exhibits and certain pages of transcript of record granted, and motion to strike entire bill of exceptions and to quash and dismiss writ of error denied.
C. H. Landefeld, Jr., of Hollywood, and Fred Botts of Miami, for plaintiffs in error.
E. R Heimburger, George W. English, Jr., and McCune, Hiaasen & Fleming, all of Fort Lauderdale, for defendant in error.
This case is before us on motion to strike certain exhibits included in the transcript of record but not included in the bill of exceptions, and which exhibits are not identified and authenticated as required by law and the rules of practice and on the further motion to strike pages 1 to 21, inclusive, of the transcript of the record including copies of the following papers:
And also to strike pages 58 to 96, inclusive, of the transcript of record, consisting of copies of the following named papers:
'Plaintiff's requested instructions filed January 16, 1936.'
And also to strike pages 102 to 105, inclusive, of the transcript of record consisting of copies of the following papers:
'Motion for verdict non obstante veredicto filed by O. W. Collins Inc., and Orville W. Collins, on January 20, 1936.'
The grounds for these motions being that these parts of the transcript are in violation of Special Rule 2 and that they did not appear to be necessary for clear and full presentation of some point or question raised by the assignment of errors to be relied upon in this court. And, further, that the plaintiffs in error made no exceptions to the charge given by the court and are therefore precluded from reviewing any error that might be in the charge given by the court. And the further ground that the purported copy of charges requested by the parties is evidence by the transcript of record and not by the bill of exceptions, and on the further ground that the plaintiffs in error have filed no assignments of error directed to any portions of the contents of the papers, copies of which are sought to be stricken.
And on the further motion to strike the entire bill of exceptions upon the ground that it does not comply with Special Rule 1 promulgated by this court, and on other grounds.
And on motion to strike from the transcript of the record pages 99 to 102, inclusive, which constitute motion for new trial, because this copy of such motion appears in the transcript of the record, while another copy of the motion appears in the bill of exceptions.
And upon the further motion to strike certain assignments of error, and on the further motion to quash and dismiss the writ of error. The motion to strike the exhibits should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Hollywood v. Bair
...of contributory negligence and a number of special pleas. Prior hereto the case at bar has been before the Court and is reported in 124 Fla. 520, 168 So. 815; 126 Fla. 413, 171 237. The parties will be referred to hereinafter as plaintiff and defendants as they appeared in the lower court. ......