Worrell v. Ford

107 So. 183, 90 Fla. 571
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 19, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 107 So. 183 (Worrell v. Ford) 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
Worrell v. Ford, 107 So. 183, 90 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1925).

Opinions

Brown, J.

Appellee filed a motion to strike the bill of exceptions in this case, upon the ground that it was not tendered or signed during the term at which the trial was had and the verdict and judgment entered, as required by Rule 97 of Circuit Court Practice-. It appears from the record that trial was had at the fall term of Polk County Circuit Court, and verdict and judgment entered on October 31st, 1924, in favor of the plaintiff, M. Ellen Ford. Motion for new trial was filed by defendant, Worrell, with *572 in four days. The motion for aew trial was heard and denied at the subsequent or sjring term of the court, on June 2nd, 1925, and the bill of exceptions was presented to the judge on July 27th, and signed by him on July 29th, 1925, during the same term in which the motion for new trial had been argued and denied. The latter term is the “term of the court at which che verdict was rendered or the trial had” within the meaning of Rule 97 of Circuit Court Rules, which provided that “the bill of exceptions shall be made up and signed curing the term of the court at which the verdict is rendered or trial had, unless by special order further time is allowed. ’ ’ The general rule is that a trial at law is not concluded until the motion for new UiaL where one is lawfully interposed, and retained for consideration, is disposed of. Greeley v. Percival, 21 Fla. 428; Rehfield v. Moore, 76 Fla. 378, 80 South. Rep. 52; Live Oak Ry. Co. v. Holmes, 85 Fla. 463; McClellan v. Wood, 78 Fla. 407, 83 So. 295; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Mallard, 53 Fla. 515, 43 So. 755.

The motion is accordingly denied.

West, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.

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

Related

Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Luke
24 So. 2d 310 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1945)
Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark
15 So. 2d 175 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)
Midcoast Investment Co. v. Smith
194 So. 222 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Davis v. City of Avon Park
151 So. 701 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Maule Ojus Rock Co. v. Lumpkin
144 So. 405 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Walters Realty Co. v. Miami Tripure Water Co.
129 So. 763 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Florida Asphalt Block Paving Co. v. Davis
121 So. 461 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 So. 183, 90 Fla. 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worrell-v-ford-fla-1925.