Case Name: N. Goldring, Plaintiff in Error, v. A. Reid and Prince Morris, Defendants in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1910-06
Citations: 60 Fla. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: N. Goldring, Plaintiff in Error, v. A. Reid and Prince Morris, Defendants in Error.
Judges: Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 78–82

Head Matter:
N. Goldring, Plaintiff in Error, v. A. Reid and Prince Morris, Defendants in Error.
1. Where a writ of error purports to be taken to a final judgment and no such final judgment as will support a writ of error appears in the transcript, the court should not proceed to consider the errors assigned but should dismiss the writ of error whether a motion be made for that purpose or not, since, except in case of an order granti-g a new trial under the statute, a writ of error may properly issue only to a judgment making a final disposition of the action in the trial court.
2. A judgment merely that the plaintiff be and is non-suited is not such a final disposition of the action as will support a writ ' of error. The judgment should state that the action is dismissed, or that the defendant go hence without day, or that the plaintiff take nothing by the action, or other equivalent expressions adjudicating that the action as instituted is at an end.
This case was decided by the Court En Banc.
Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
(The aboye headnotes coyer both the opinion and the opinion on rehearing.)
Jno. O. Avery, for Plaintiff in Error;
Jones & Paseo, for Defendants in Error.

Opinion:
Shackleford, J.
In taking up this case for consideration we find that the record discloses the fact that issue was joined between the parties, a jury empanelled and a trial entered upon, during the course of which the plaintiff announced that by reason of certain rulings of the trial court it had become necessary for him to suffer a non-suit, but the only entry in the nature of a judgment is in the following language:
"And it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the said petitioner be, and he is hereby non-suited accordingly, and that the defendants do have and recover their costs herein, and have execution therefor. Thereupon, upon petitioner's notice it is ordered that he have sixty (60) days within which to prepare and present his bill of exceptions."
This does not constitute a final judgment, as we held in Mizell Live Stock Co. v. J. J. McCaskill Co., 57 Fla., 118; 49 South. Rep. 501. See the discussion and authorities cited therein, especially Boggess v. Cox, 48 Mo. 278, wherein it was held: "Where a non-suit is taken, in order to justify an appeal or writ of error the judgment should be formally set out, 'that it is by the court therefore considered and adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing by his writ, and that the defendant go thereof without day and recover of the plaintiff his costs,' etc."
This is squarely in line with our holding as to what .constitutes a final judgment for the defendant. See Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353; 33 South. Rep. 982.
There being no final judgment, it necessarily follows that the writ of error must be dismissed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur.
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J. concur in the opinion.