Barnett v. Hickson
This text of 48 Fla. 68 (Barnett v. Hickson) 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.
Opinion
This cause came on to be heard on motion of the plaintiff in error to amend the writ of error issued and recorded in said cause. The writ of error was issued during the January term, 1904, of this court and was made returnable to a day within said January term, which, under the former decisions here, conferred no jurisdiction [69]*69in this court over said cause for the purposes of amendment of the writ or otherwise. Driggs, Adm’r, v. Higgins, 19 Fla. 103; Fleming v. Fleming, 40 Fla. 154, 23 South. Rep. 571; Payne v. Roche, 41 Fla. 478, 27 South. Rep. 29; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Justice, 41 Fla. 508, 26 South. Rep. 704. The motion to amend is, therefore, hereby denied and the cause is stricken from the dockets of this court.
Hocker and Cockrell, JJ., being disqualified, took no part in the consideration of this case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
48 Fla. 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-hickson-fla-1904.