Hewitt v. International Shoe Co.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1934 |
| Citation | 155 So. 725,115 Fla. 508 |
| Parties | HEWITT v. INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; Worth W. Trammell, Judge.
On motion to recall mandate for purpose of rehearing.
Motion denied.
For former opinion, see 154 So. 838.
COUNSEL Blackwell & Gray, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Snedigar & Baya, of Miami, for defendants in error.
Under section 4690, C. G. L., section 2961, R. G. S., the Supreme Court holds two terms in each year commencing, respectively on the second Tuesday in January and June. The January term of the Supreme Court ended June 11, 1934. The June term of this court began June 12, 1934. On May 11, 1934, this court rendered an opinion in the abovestyled cause reversing the judgment of the lower court. 154 So. 838. On June 11, 1934 counsel for the unsuccessful defendant in error placed in the United States mail at Miami a petition to recall the mandate and for permission to file petition for rehearing concerning the judgment of this court entered May 11, 1934. The petition was not received by the clerk of this court at Tallahassee until June 12, 1934, upon which date it was marked 'filed' by the clerk.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to consider the present petition because it was not filed during the term at which the judgment was rendered pursuant to which the mandate has issued, no special order having been made continuing jurisdiction over the cause until the present term. The petition was not 'filed' in contemplation of law until it was actually received and 'filed' by the clerk of this court on June 12, 1934, even though it was mailed on June 11th, properly addressed to the clerk and forwarded by air mail, special delivery, with the intention that it should be received and be filed by the clerk on June 11th instead of on June 12th.
Papers which the law requires to be 'filed' on or before a certain day at the capital of the state are not legally 'filed' by merely placing them in the United States mail during the period of time permitted for filing them. Such papers should not only be mailed within the time allowed by law, but should be mailed sufficiently early to be received at the office of their destination before the time allowed by law expires for the 'filing' of such papers.
It appearing that the present petition was not filed during the January term, 1934, the same must be denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olds v. Alvord
... ... 635, 146 So. 836; McGregor v ... Hammock, 114 Fla. 259, 154 So. 191; Hewitt v ... International Shoe Co., 115 Fla. 508, 155 So. 725; ... Allen v. Brevard County Loan & ... ...
- International Shoe Co. v. Hewitt
-
Poll v. City Of Plainfield.
...is so deposited or placed in the custody of such officer before he may claim that it is properly filed. * * *’ In Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 115 Fla. 508, 155 So. 725, the last date for filing a petition to re-open a judgment was June 11th of the particular year. The petition was pla......
-
McGee v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
...and solely by a miscarriage of the mails. State ex rel. Attorney General, 185 Ala. 347, 64 So. 310. See also Hewitt v. International Shoe Co., 115 Fla. 508, 155 So. 725. The Louisiana Court of Appeal Rule XII, above noted, accords with the applicable statutory and constitutional provisions ......