Cravatt v. Pierson

113 So. 94, 93 Fla. 935
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 20, 1927·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court to which the writ of error is addressed should be reversed while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion the judgment will be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380, and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 South. Rep. 796. Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. —.

An order will be entered affirming the judgment herein.

All concur.

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

Cravatt v. Pierson, 113 So. 94, 93 Fla. 935 (Fla. 1927).

113 So. 94 (Cravatt v. Pierson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National City Bank v. Beulah Baptist Institutional Church
122 So. 274 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Butler v. Jones
118 So. 684 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)