Skip to main content
· 1/15/1898

State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield

Citations

  • 40 Fla. 36

Syllabus

<p>Appellate Practice — Constructive Service on Defendants in Error by Recording Writ of Error — Chapter 4589, Laws' of 1897, Constitutionally Upheld and Construed — Mandamus Against City Council' — Writ of Error Must Be Sued Out in Names of All Joint — Judgment Défendants — Original Writs of Error Must Be Returned to Appellate Court.</p> <p>1. Chapter 4589 laws, approved May 8th, 1897, entitled: “An act to abrogate the writ of scire facias ad aMdiendwm errores in appellate proceedings to the Supreme Court, and to provide a substitute therefor in civil causes,” held to be not obnoxious to that provision of the constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida that forbids the deprivation of property without due i rocess of law. Our Legislature has the power, not only to regulate and prescribe the procedure to obtain in our several courts, respectively, but also to regulate and prescribe the procedure by which causes tried in the courts of first instance shall be transferred for review to other tribunals clothed by the constitution with revisory powers; and when, in so doing, it provides that the issuance and record of a writ of error in the court of first instance shall have the effect of transferring the cause and the litigants therein to the jurisdiction of the revising court for re-examination, it has prescribed that “due process of law” contemplated by said constitutions. A writ of error proceeding is not such a new and original suit as to require the same strictness and rigidity in the service upon the defendant therein of notice of its institution, as is required at the institution of á new and original action in a court of first instance, but is rather a continuation of an original suit; and a statute providing for constructive notice only of its institution and pendency does not violate that provision of the organic law that prohibits the deprivation of property without due process of law. (Mr. Justice Carter dissenting.)</p> <p>2. Nothing 'but

Judges: Carter, Taylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.