Arnold v. Boyce

121 So. 472, 97 Fla. 484
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 4, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 So. 472 (Arnold v. Boyce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. Boyce, 121 So. 472, 97 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1929).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

In this case an inspection of the record discloses that the writ of error was made returnable to a date more than ninety days after the date of the issuance of the writ. Therefore, the Court is without jurisdiction in the cause and the writ of error must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Dismissed.

Terrell, C. J., and Wi-iiteield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Per Curiam. — Fact that Supreme Court stood in recess on date at which writ of error was applied for did not war *485 rant making writ returnable at date more than 90 days after its issuance, since court had not adjourned and term of court is continuous from commencement thereof until beginning of succeeding term.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Picot v. Picot
173 So. 433 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 So. 472, 97 Fla. 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-boyce-fla-1929.