Carlton v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

116 So. 870, 95 Fla. 596
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 5, 1928·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The amended declaration herein does not wholly fail to state a cause of action, therefore, the demurrer thereto should have been overruled. Wertz v. Tampa Electric Co., 78 Fla. 405, 83 South. Rep. 270; Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co., 83 Fla. 29, 90 South. Rep. 621; Pero v. Corley, 87 Fla. 448, 100 South. Rep. 748; Foster v. St. Johns Electric Co., 86 Fla. 338, 98 South. Rep. 75; McDonald v. Exchange Supply Co., 88 Fla. 80, 101 South. Rep. 28; Cummings Mach. Works v. Clark, 89 Fla. 383, 105 South. Rep. 100; Hawkins v. Shore Acres Properties, 93 *597 Fla. 670, 112 South. Rep. 61; Yon v. Pinellas County Power Co., 93 Fla. 503, 112 South Rep. 50.

The judgment rendered on the demurrer is reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., concur in the opinion and judgment. Brown, J., disqualified.

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

Carlton v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 116 So. 870, 95 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1928).

116 So. 870 (Carlton v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hammontree v. City of Tampa
146 So. 556 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Greene v. Miller Et Ux.
136 So. 532 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Gregg Corp. v. Burdine
129 So. 868 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Boyle v. Dolan
120 So. 334 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)