Beach, Et Ux. v. Kirk

189 So. 263, 138 Fla. 80
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided November 16, 1938·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed while Mr. Justice BROWN and Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of the opinion that the said decree should be affirmed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the *Page 81 Court, the decree should be affirmed; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State.ex rel., Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, C. J., and WHITFIELD, BROWN, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, J. J., concur.

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

Beach, Et Ux. v. Kirk, 189 So. 263, 138 Fla. 80 (Fla. 1938).

189 So. 263 (Beach, Et Ux. v. Kirk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lady Cyana Divers, Inc. v. Carvalho
561 So. 2d 612 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
River Hills, Inc. v. Edwards
190 So. 2d 415 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Lee Construction Corp. v. Newman
143 So. 2d 222 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Dillon v. J. W. Walter, Inc.
98 So. 2d 391 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1957)