Skip to main content

Markey v. State

Citations

  • 47 Fla. 38

Syllabus

<p>1. Where a document is offered in its entirety and is admitted in evidence, without objection, a motion to strike out said document as an entirety upon' the ground that a portion thereof is incompetent and inadmissible upon certain specified grounds, should be overruled, when any part of said document is admissible as against the specific grounds urged.</p> <p>2. Where a record was offered in evidence by the State and at the time of said offer it was stated that certain portions of said record were not included therein and were not offered, and the defendant, being thus put upon notice as to the excluded parts, consented to the introduction of said record, no error was committed by the trial court in denying a motion of the defendant to strike out said record on the ground that the whole record was not filed in evidence, especially where it is not made to appear that the defendant was in any manner harmed by the omission of the excluded parts.</p> <p>3. Where upon motion of the complainant’s solicitors in a divorce suit the court orders and appoints a certain designated person to take the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses in said divorce suit but fails to designate said person as an examiner, master in chancery or by any official title, the order ,is sufficient to confer full authority upon the designated person to take said testimony and such authority carries with it the power and authority as well as the duty to administer oaths to the complainant and other witnesses. (Hocker, J., dissenting.)</p> <p>4. Where the complainant in a divorce suit procures an order from the court appointing a certain designated person to take the testimony of himself and other witnesses in said suit, but said order fails to designate said person an examiner or master in chancery or to give to him any official title, and the complainant proceeds to have his testimony taken in said divorce suit by the person so appointed by the court, at complainant’s request, and uses

Judges: Hocker, Shackleford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.