Hoodless v. Jernigan

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtSHACKLEFORD, J.
Citation46 Fla. 213,35 So. 656
PartiesHOODLESS v. JERNIGAN.
Decision Date09 December 1903

35 So. 656

46 Fla. 213

HOODLESS
v.
JERNIGAN.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

December 9, 1903


Error to Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County; Lucius J. Reeves, Judge.

Action by W. L. Jernigan against John Hoodless. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. A party who objects to evidence or the competency of witnesses should state specifically the grounds of his objections, in order to apprise the court and his adversary of the precise objection he intends to make. General objections to evidence proposed, without stating the precise ground of objections, are vague and nugatory, and are without weight before an appellate court, unless the evidence objected to is palpably prejudicial, improper, and inadmissible for any purpose or under any circumstances, when a general objection thereto is sufficient.

2. This court cannot consider any objections to the admissibility of evidence, except such objections as were made in the court below; the plaintiff in error being confined to the specific objections made in the trial court.

3. In actions at law the party objecting to the introduction of evidence must not only state specifically the grounds of his objections thereto, seasonably except to the ruling of the court thereon, and base his assignment of error upon the objections as made in the court below, and upon the ruling thereon, but must argue the assignment as made, in this court.

4. The only exception to the rule that errors not assigned or not argued will not be considered by this court is where a jurisdictional or other fundamental error is apparent on the face of the record itself.

5. Where a document is offered in its entirety, and in its entirety is objected to upon the ground that a portion of it is inadmissible, and that in a general way, such objection should be overruled.

6. The evidentiary and ordinary bills of exceptions must be made up separate and distinct from each other, and each must be sufficient and complete in itself to review the errors designed to be presented, and a reference by the court from one to the other is not permissible to aid defects in either.

7. The duty devolves upon the plaintiff in error or his counsel, upon resort to an appellate court, to make the errors complained of clearly to appear, if they in truth exist, by a proper record of all the facts and circumstances pertinent to and connected with such alleged error; and, in exhibiting them, the duty likewise devolves upon him to exhibit all such facts and circumstances fairly and truly.

8. The rules contemplate that in making up bills of exceptions based upon the admission or rejection of evidence, where the evidence admitted or rejected, forming the subject of the exception, does not in and of itself show upon its face its pertinency and relevancy to the issue being tried, and there is other evidence, either admitted, or proffered and rejected, that will connect it with the case and show its relevance or pertinence, such other connecting evidence should be set forth in the bill of exceptions so as to enable the appellate court fully and fairly to pass upon the propriety or impropriety of the admission or rejection thereof.

9. This court has repeatedly and uniformly held that the office of a bill of exceptions is to give the facts on which the court decided, and should give all the facts bearing upon the decision, so that the appellate court may know fully and clearly everything which influenced the decision of the court. Our new rules make no change in this requirement, but simply provide, in actions at law, except criminal actions, for both an ordinary and evidentiary bill of exceptions, when necessary, and prescribe what each bill should contain, and how said bills should be made up.

10. Where the error complained of is based upon an instruction given to the jury, or the refusal to give a requested instruction, then the plaintiff in error should have recited in the ordinary bill of exceptions a statement of the evidence, or what the evidence tended to prove, in connection with the instruction given or refused, predicated on such evidence, in compliance with the requirements of special rule 3.

11. The appellate court, equally with suitors, is bound by its rules, and they must be construed as statutes would be construed.

12. Errors assigned and not argued will be treated as abandoned. It is not sufficient merely to repeat the error assigned, and state that, in the opinion of counsel, this constitutes error, or that an inspection of the evidence or instructions, or of the record, will show it to be error. Unless the error complained of is so glaring or patent that no argument is needed to demonstrate it, counsel must call the attention of this court to the specific grounds upon which the error is based, stating his reasons therefor, and citing authorities in support thereof, and, where reference to the record is necessary, should give the pages thereof.

13. Section 1109 of Revised Statutes of 1892 makes copies of the records and judicial proceedings of any court in this state admissible in evidence in all cases in this state, when authenticated by the attestation of the officer having charge of the records of said court, with the seal of such court annexed. Under this statute certified copies of the minutes of any court of record in this state would be admissible in evidence.

14. While it is true that if the description of the land conveyed in a deed is such that a surveyor, by applying the rules of surveying, can locate the same, such description is sufficient, and the deed will be sustained, if it is possible, from the whole description, to ascertain and identify the land intended to be conveyed, it is also true that the description of the premises conveyed must be sufficiently definite and certain to enable the land to be identified; otherwise it will be held void for uncertainty.

15. Section 1515 of the Revised Statutes of 1892 requires that in an action of ejectment a verdict for the plaintiff shall state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot, or other certain description. A verdict which fails to find and state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff is fatally defective.

16. Section 1515 of the Revised Statutes of 1892 requires that the judgment in an action of ejectment shall state the quantity of the estate, and give a description of the land recovered. A judgment is fatally defective which lacks both of these requirements.

17. The judgment in an action of ejectment should follow the verdict, as a matter of course, and, where the verdict is fatally defective, it is error to enter a judgment thereon.

COUNSEL [35 So. 657]

[46 Fla. 216] Ernest Amos, for plaintiff in error.

A. G. Campbell, for defendant in error.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD, J.

W. L. Jernigan brought an action of ejectment in the circuit court of Santa Rosa county against John Hoodless for the recovery of a tract of land lying in said county, described as the south half of lot 2 in section 2, township 1 north, range 28 west, containing about 40 acres, and for mesne profits. The defendant pleaded 'Not guilty,' and trial was had, which resulted in the following verdict being rendered by the jury in favor of the plaintiff October 7, 1901: 'We, the jury, find that the plaintiff is entitled to the lands in dispute, towit, S. 1/2 of lot 2, Tp. 1 N., R. 28 west, containing 40 acres, more or less, and assess plaintiff's damages at $25.'

Upon said verdict the following judgment was entered by the court October 11, 1901: 'Therefore it is considered by the court that the plaintiff do have possession of said land as described, and that he do have and recover of and from the said defendant the said sum of $25 as his damages, and the further sum of $33.13 as his costs in his behalf expended [35 So. 658] in and about this suit, and that he do have execution and writ of possession therefor.'

The defendant below, who is plaintiff in error here, seeks reversal by writ of error, and has assigned six errors.

The first assignment is that 'the court erred in admitting the certified copies of the minutes of the court re-establishing the execution under which the land in question was sold to Woods, under which sale plaintiff deraigned.'

The ordinary bill of exceptions discloses that the plaintiff [46 Fla. 217] offered in evidence, as an entirety, certified copies of the minutes of said court, containing copies of judgments recovered in said court by Joseph Gundersheimer and Louis Shields, partners under name and style of J. Gundersheimer & Co., as plaintiffs, and by Abram Forsheimer and Gerson Forsheimer, partners under firm name and style of A. & G. Forsheimer, as plaintiffs, against William L. Crigler, George F. C. Batchelder, Thomas Murry, and John C. Pooley, partners under firm name and style of Crigler, Batchelder & Pooley, as defendants; copies of the executions issued on said judgments; and copies of orders made by Hon. Homer G. Planz, then judge of said court, on the 13th day of October, A. D. 1870, in open court, reciting therein the loss of said original judgments and executions by fire, and ordering that said copies be established in lieu thereof, and that plaintiffs have the same rights thereunder as they would have had under the originals. The only objections interposed by defendant to the introduction of the certified copy of said minutes in evidence were 'because they are not the executions under which the lands were sold,' and 'because they are only copies of the minutes of the court re-establishing the judgments and executions.'

As said by this court in Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla. 283, text, 338, quoting with approval the Supreme Court of New York as being in perfect agreement with the Supreme Court of the United States, 'a party who...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 practice notes
  • Thomas v. State, No. 89-449
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 28, 1992
    ...Page 166 consider those objections to admissibility of evidence which are raised for the first time on appeal. Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656 (1903); Cross v. Aby, 55 Fla. 311, 45 So. 820 (1908); Tampa Elec. Co. v. Charles, 69 Fla. 27, 67 So. 572 (1915); Metropolis Co. v. Cro......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • February 20, 1907
    ...other grounds of objection, which are general in their nature, see Thomas v. Williamson, 51 Fla. 332, 40 So. 831; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656, and authorities there cited. This assignment has not been sustained. The tenth assignment is that 'the court erred in permitting w......
  • Pittman v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 10, 1906
    ...feel that we would be justified in treating these two assignments as practically abandoned because not argued. See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656, and authorities there cited; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 So. 518; Jackson v. State, ......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Benedict Pineapple Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 4, 1906
    ...in concluding that he has no confidence in them and has abandoned them. Therefore the court will so treat them. See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656, and numerous authorities cited therein; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161; Florida Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
77 cases
  • Thomas v. State, No. 89-449
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 28, 1992
    ...Page 166 consider those objections to admissibility of evidence which are raised for the first time on appeal. Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656 (1903); Cross v. Aby, 55 Fla. 311, 45 So. 820 (1908); Tampa Elec. Co. v. Charles, 69 Fla. 27, 67 So. 572 (1915); Metropolis Co. v. Cro......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • February 20, 1907
    ...other grounds of objection, which are general in their nature, see Thomas v. Williamson, 51 Fla. 332, 40 So. 831; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656, and authorities there cited. This assignment has not been sustained. The tenth assignment is that 'the court erred in permitting w......
  • Pittman v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 10, 1906
    ...feel that we would be justified in treating these two assignments as practically abandoned because not argued. See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656, and authorities there cited; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 So. 518; Jackson v. State, ......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Benedict Pineapple Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 4, 1906
    ...in concluding that he has no confidence in them and has abandoned them. Therefore the court will so treat them. See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656, and numerous authorities cited therein; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161; Florida Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT