Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. George
| Decision Date | 14 January 1926 |
| Citation | 107 So. 266,91 Fla. 42 |
| Parties | FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. GEORGE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Seminole County; J. J. Dickinson, Judge.
Action by B. F. George against the Florida East Coast Railway Company for damages. To review the judgment of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the county court for plaintiff defendant brings certiorari.
Judgment of affirmance by circuit court quashed.
Syllabus by the Court
Power of Supreme Court on certiorari to circuit court is limited to examination into external validity of its proceedings, and does not extend to intrinsic correctness of judgments (Const art. 5, § 11). This court, on a certiorari to a circuit court, is limited by the Constitution in its supervisory power as an appellate court to an examination into the external validity of the proceedings had in the circuit court, and it is not the province of this court to review the judgment of the circuit court as to the intrinsic correctness of its judgments in cases where the record presented shows that a cause of action existed, and also shows that the court of original jurisdiction had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and that jurisdiction was acquired by the intermediate appellate court in accordance with the law.
On certiorari to circuit court to review record presented by writ of error to review judgment of county court, Supreme Court may review action of court of original jurisdiction in construing statutes. On certiorari to the circuit court to review the record presented by writ of error to such court upon a judgment entered in a county court, it is the province of this court to review the action of the court of original jurisdiction in construing statutes applicable to questions presented to the trial court, the essential requirements of which must be followed by the trial court.
Where limitation of time fixed by statute exceeds a week intervening Sundays are included in computation, but, if less than a week, intervening Sunday, unless it is last day, is excluded (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 2811). In construing section 2811, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920, and computing the time thereunder, the rule to be applied is that, where a limitation of time is fixed by statute within which a particular act is required to be performed and after which the performance of the act would be without effect, if the time exceed a week, intervening Sundays are included in the computation of time, but, if less than a week, an intervening Sunday, unless it is the last day, is excluded.
If Sunday falls within four days allowed for filing motion for new trial, and is not last day of such period, such Sunday should be excluded in computing time (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 2811). Where a Sunday falls within the four days' limitation prescribed by section 2811, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920, and is not the last day of that period, such Sunday should be excluded in computing the time allowed for the filing of a motion for a new trial.
Robert H. Anderson, of Jacksonville, and Harrison E. Barringer, of Sarasota, for petitioner.
George G. Herring, of Sanford, for respondent.
This cause is before this court upon a writ of certiorari to the circuit court of Seminole county, Fla., to review the judgment of that court affirming a judgment of the county court of that county against the petitioner in a civil suit in which the respondent has secured judgment against the petitioner in an action for damage sustained in the killing of a cow belonging to the respondent.
Our Constitution provides that the circuit court have final appellate jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising in the county court or before the county judge. Article 5, § 11, Constitution 1885.
This proceeding is brought to this court to review the action of the county court of Seminole county, Fla.:
First. In refusing to consider petitioner's motion for new trial.
Second. In holding the petitioner under the evidence liable for double damage and attorney's fees.
Third. In giving weight to testimony offered upon the trial.
And to review the action of the circuit court in affirming the judgment of the county court.
This court on a certiorari to a circuit court is limited by the Constitution in its supervisory power as an appellate court to an examination into the external validity of the proceedings had in the circuit court, and it is not the province of this court to review the judgment of the circuit court as to the intrinsic correctness of its judgments in cases where the record presented shows that a cause of action existed, and also shows that the court of original jurisdiction had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and that jurisdiction was acquired by the appellate court in accordance with the law. Carey T. Benton v. State of Florida, 76 So. 341, 74 Fla. 30.
It appears from the record in this case that the county court of Seminole county had jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties lawfully acquired, and that the circuit court as the court of final appellate jurisdiction acquired jurisdiction in the manner and form prescribed by law, and that, in disposing of the cause, the circuit court acted within the limits of its jurisdiction and powers.
There is no question raised as to the validity of the jurisdiction of either court.
The proceedings of the circuit court appear to be legal.
This court has no power to inquire into the alleged error committed in giving weight to testimony admitted in the trial court, neither is it the province of this court to review the judgment of the circuit court, entered upon a writ of error to that court, in which that court lawfully exercised its power of final appellate jurisdiction. Ragland v State, 46 So. 724, 55...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamway v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
...Supreme Court under the writ, the distinction between the supervisory power of the court and its duties as an appellate court. F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. George, supra; Benton v. supra; Ragland v. State, 55 Fla. 157, 46 So. 724. In the latter case the distinction between an 'illegal' and 'erroneou......
-
Gilbert v. State
...124 So. 1 98 Fla. 599 GILBERT v. STATE. Florida Supreme CourtOctober 10, 1929 ... Commissioners' ... Decision ... 66, 113 So ... 384. See, also, Florida E. C. Ry. Co. v. George, 91 ... Fla. 42, 107 So. 266; Benton v. State, 74 Fla. 30, ... 76 So ... ...
-
Farrior v. State
...v. State, 145 Fla. 220, 198 So. 827, we held that under Sec. 8413, supra, the rule laid down in the civil case of Florida East Coast R. Co. v. George, 91 Fla. 42, 107 So. 266, that an intervening Sunday falling within the four day period prescribed for filing a motion for new trial in civil......
-
Chitty & Co. v. Granthum
...200 So. 696 146 Fla. 299 CHITTY & CO. v. GRANTHUM. Florida Supreme CourtFebruary 25, 1941 ... Opinion ... Modified April ... Error ... to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; George W. Tedder, Judge ... Action ... by C. A. Granthum against ... Hanne, 50 Fla. 267, 39 So. 77, 7 ... Ann.Gas. 322; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. George, ... 91 Fla. 42, 107 So. 266, with citation of ... ...