Flournoy v. Interstate Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1911
• Citation: 55 So. 983,61 Fla. 214
• Parties: FLOURNOY v. INTERSTATE ELECTRIC CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

55 So. 983

61 Fla. 214

FLOURNOY v. INTERSTATE ELECTRIC CO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

March 16, 1911

Error to Circuit Court, Walton County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.

Action between Wm. W. Flournoy and the Interstate Electric Company. From the judgment, plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

See, also, 55 So. 843.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where a writ of error purports to be taken

to a final judgment, and no final judgment appears in the transcript of the record proper, the court should not proceed to consider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for the purpose or not.

The rules contemplate that in making up a transcript of the record to be transmitted to the appellate court in response to a writ of error, the judgment to which the writ of error is addressed should be included in the transcript.

COUNSEL Wm. W. Flournoy, in pro. per.

W. O. Butler, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

The writ of error herein is addressed to a judgment entered in the cause, but no judgment appears in the transcript of the record on file here.

Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment, and no final judgment appears in the transcript of the record proper, the court should not proceed to consider the errors assigned, but should dismiss the writ of error, whether a motion be made for that purpose or not. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Bennett, 47 Fla. 215, 36 So. 86; Goldring v. Reed, 61 Fla. ----, 53 So. 503; Graves v. Harris, 61 Fla. ----, 54 So. 390.

The rules contemplate that in making up a transcript of the record to be transmitted to the appellate court in response to a writ of error, the judgment to which the writ of error is addressed should be included in the transcript.

In this case counsel directed the clerk to include in the transcript certain specified 'papers,' but did not mention or include the judgment, and directed the clerk to 'omit from the transcript all other papers.'

The writ of error is dismissed.

TAYLOR, HOCKER, and PARKHILL, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C.J., and SHACKLEFORD and COCKRELL, JJ., concur in the opinion.