Haynes v. Bramlett

Supreme Court of Florida

Haynes v. Bramlett

43 Fla. 141

DecidedJanuary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Fla. 141 (Haynes v. Bramlett) 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

Haynes v. Bramlett, 43 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause came on for hearing upon motion of de[142]*142fenclant in error to strike from the transcript of the record certain designated portions thereof and certain assignments of error and to quash or dismiss the writ of error dr affirm the judgment of the court below upon grounds stated in said motion; upon consideration thereof and the briefs filed by the parties, it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the following portions of the transcript so moved to be stricken, to-wit: Affidavit of T. W. Bramlett, on pages 5 and 6, affidavit of W. B. Haynes on page 11, affidavit of Thomas E. Bugg, on page 12, not being evidenced by bill of exceptions, are not parts of the record proper and are hereby stricken. Hellen v. Steinwender, 28 Fla. 191, 10 South. Rep. 207. It is further ordered and adjudged that irTother respects the said motion is hereby denied.

(Mr. Justice Mabry, being disqualified, took no part in this decision.)

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

Per Curiam.

This cause came on for hearing upon motion of de[142]*142fenclant in error to strike from the transcript of the record certain designated portions thereof and certain assignments of error and to quash or dismiss the writ of error dr affirm the judgment of the court below upon grounds stated in said motion; upon consideration thereof and the briefs filed by the parties, it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the following portions of the transcript so moved to be stricken, to-wit: Affidavit of T. W. Bramlett, on pages 5 and 6, affidavit of W. B. Haynes on page 11, affidavit of Thomas E. Bugg, on page 12, not being evidenced by bill of exceptions, are not parts of the record proper and are hereby stricken. Hellen v. Steinwender, 28 Fla. 191, 10 South. Rep. 207. It is further ordered and adjudged that irTother respects the said motion is hereby denied.

(Mr. Justice Mabry, being disqualified, took no part in this decision.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Fla. 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-bramlett-fla-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack