Cummings Machine Works v. Clark

104 So. 861, 89 Fla. 383
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 7, 1925·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The declaration herein does not wholly fail to state a cause of action, therefore the demurrer should not have been sustained. McDonald v. Exchange Supply Co., 88 Fla. 80, 101 South. Rep. 28; Pero v. Corlet, 87 Fla. 448, 10 South. Rep. 748.

Reversed.

West, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and Terrell, J. J., concur.

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

Cummings Machine Works v. Clark, 104 So. 861, 89 Fla. 383 (Fla. 1925).

104 So. 861 (Cummings Machine Works v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harford v. Graves
136 So. 620 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Ballas v. Lake Weir Light & Water Co.
130 So. 421 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Gregg Corp. v. Burdine
129 So. 868 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Garsed v. Sugarman
126 So. 157 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Carlton v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
116 So. 870 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Brown v. Pennsylvania Sugar Company
116 So. 72 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)