Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Streety
| Decision Date | 16 November 1910 |
| Citation | 60 Fla. 183,53 So. 505 |
| Parties | PITTSBURG STEEL CO. v. STREETY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; B. H. Palmer Judge.
Action between the Pittsburg Steel Company and J. D. Streety. From the judgment, the Steel Company brings error. On application to amend transcript. Continued.
Syllabus by the Court
A judgment in an action at law is rendered when it is entered or recorded in the minutes of the court during term time, or when in vacation it is put in form for such entry or record and is signed by the judge.
Where no final judgment is entered in the minutes of the court at the trial, but a final judgment nunc pro tunc is put in form for record and signed by the trial judge at a subsequent day a writ of error issued prior to the date of the judgment signed by the judge is ineffectual, and cannot be used to bring the judgment to the appellate court for review.
COUNSEL W. H. Wilson and A. J. Henry, for plaintiff in error.
Small & Palmer, for defendant in error.
The transcript of the record filed herein June 11, 1910, contains a verdict for the defendant, J. D. Streety, rendered November 3, 1909, and also a writ of error dated May 3, 1910 returnable June 11, 1910, addressed to a judgment in the cause; but no final judgment appears. The plaintiff in error now presents a certified copy of a final judgment nunc pro tunc in the cause dated October 28, 1910, signed by the trial judge, in which it is stated that judgment was rendered on the verdict, but was not entered by the clerk, and leave is asked to amend the transcripts of the record by inserting therein the judgment dated October 28, 1910, and to file briefs.
The writ of error purports to be issued to a final judgment; but, if there was no final judgment in existence when the writ of error was issued, it is ineffectual, and cannot be used to bring to the appellate court for review a final judgment nunc pro tunc subsequently rendered. A judgment in an action at law is rendered where it is entered or recorded in the minutes of the court during term time, or when in vacation it is put in form for such entry or record and is signed by the judge.
In this case it appears that the final judgment was not entered or recorded in the minutes of the court when the trial was had but it was put in form for entry or record and signed by the judge on October ----, 1910. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hahn v. Citizens State Bank
... ... 117, 30 N.W. 436; Lisker v ... O'Rourke, 28 Mont. 129, 72 P. 416, 755; ... Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Streety, 60 Fla. 183, 53 So ... 505; Trotti v. Kinnear (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S.W ... ...
-
Ellis v. State
... ... its decision, the entry may be made nunc pro tunc.' This ... rule was followed in Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Streety, ... 60 Fla. 183, 53 So. 505, wherein this court said: 'A ... judgment in an ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Holliday
...proof to that effect, that the writ of error was not sued out within six months from the date of such judgment. As we held in Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Streety, supra: judgment in an action at law is rendered when it is entered or recorded in the minutes of the court during term time or when i......
-
Dupree v. Elleman
... ... and is signed by the judge.' Pittsburg Steel Co. v ... Streety, 60 Fla. 183, 53 So. 505; 34 C.J. 55 ... [139 ... Fla. 817] ... ...