Hogan v. State ex rel. Williams

Supreme Court of Florida

Hogan v. State ex rel. Williams

95 So. 617, 85 Fla. 27

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 9, 1923·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is 'a proceeding in mandamus. It is brought to this- court by writ of error. After return to the alternative writ had been made an attorney was appointed by order of the court to take the testimony of witnesses and report same to the court. Pursuant to- this order testimony was taken as if it were a chancery cause. There is no bill [28]*28of exceptions in the record but the record contains what purports to be a copy of the evidence. The motion to strike the pages of the record containing this evidence should be granted. ■ '

The motion to strike is granted.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This is 'a proceeding in mandamus. It is brought to this- court by writ of error. After return to the alternative writ had been made an attorney was appointed by order of the court to take the testimony of witnesses and report same to the court. Pursuant to- this order testimony was taken as if it were a chancery cause. There is no bill [28]*28of exceptions in the record but the record contains what purports to be a copy of the evidence. The motion to strike the pages of the record containing this evidence should be granted. ■ '

The motion to strike is granted.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.

Hogan v. State ex rel. Williams, 95 So. 617, 85 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1923).

Pincite

95 So. 617 (Hogan v. State ex rel. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related